Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

David Rientjes
2007-05-09T18:46:21Z

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Thus, any reliance on type-qualifying an object that represents an atomic
> > or locking primitive on the keyword 'volatile' is misplaced.
>
> arch/foo is generally implementation specific code.
>

That's true, but what qualifies as an "access" to an object that is
type qualified with the 'volatile' keyword is _implementation_ defined,
meaning the behavior is defined by the compiler and not this new
architecture you're proposing 'volatile' is appropriate for. That's pure
C99.