Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Stefan Richter wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> [slightly off topic: GCCisms in Linux kernel]
>> It contains *many* constructs that are not defined in, for
>> example, C99, and it would in fact be impossible to write the Linux
>> kernel using only C99-compliant constructs.
> 
> True.  On the other hand, it is possible to keep large parts of the
> kernel independent of compiler implementation details.  And it is not
> only possible but also beneficial, e.g. because the compiler's
> implementation changes over time.

It is, but this is not likely to be one of those things.

Either way, I fully agree with the following (from Jeff):

> jimmy bahuleyan wrote:
>> i believe, the doc here is pretty unambiguous regarding the fact that
>> volatile should be avoided. And as Stefan pointed out, anyone who feels
>> the need to use, must surely _know_ what he is doing & hence is in a
>> position t make that decision
> 
> Honestly, the above quoted paragraph states the situation better than any long, complicated document.

	-hpa