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

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

Satyam Sharma wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Of course, volatile _is_ defined (well, _anything_ that is implemented
> _is_ defined, after all) in the context of GNU C, and if you're saying
> that the kernel (and all its subsystems) is and should _continue_ to
> be (the purpose of this document) written within that context, then
> that's your opinion and I would not disagree with you. If you do
> prefer to continue using that dialect, then I wouldn't stop you either.
> 

This isn't just an opinion, this is the language the Linux kernel is
written in today, and has been for the duration of its 16-year
existence.  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.

> Personally, I'd prefer writing in a slightly more portable / larger
> context (using well-defined and understood APIs), thank you, and
> hope you'd allow me to do so myself.

There is no such "slightly more portable/larger context/well-defined and
understood" context in existence.  If you think so, you're deluding
yourself.

	-hpa