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

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <linux@treblig.org>]

* H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com) wrote:
> Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > 
> > Because volatile is ill-defined? Or actually, *undefined* (well,
> > implementation-defined is as good as that)? It's *so* _vague_,
> > one doesn't _feel_ like using it at all!
> > 
> 
> Sorry, that's just utter crap.  Linux isn't written in some mythical C
> which only exists in standard document, it is written in a particular
> subset of GNU C.  "volatile" is well enough defined in that context, it
> is just frequently misused.

Where? I don't ever recall seeing something that defines Gcc's behaviour
with volatile on different architectures.
I know on some architectures gcc generates different instructions
for volatile accesses (e.g. load acquire/store release on IA64); I'd
be pleasently surprised if gcc's behaviour was consistent accross
architectures.

Dave
-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/