Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@...>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...>, <heiko.carstens@...>, <horms@...>, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, David Miller <davem@...>, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...>, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...>, <ak@...>, <cfriesen@...>, <rpjday@...>, Netdev <netdev@...>, <jesper.juhl@...>, <linux-arch@...>, <zlynx@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, <schwidefsky@...>, Chris Snook <csnook@...>, Herbert Xu <herbert@...>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...>, <wensong@...>, <wjiang@...>
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, the code in that sub-thread I earlier pointed you at *WAS* written
such that there was a sequence point after all the uses of that volatile
access cast macro, and _therefore_ we were safe from re-ordering
(behaviour guaranteed by the C standard).
But you seem to be missing the simple and basic fact that:
(something_that_has_side_effects || statement)
!= something_that_is_a_sequence_point
Now, one cannot fantasize that "volatile asms" are also sequence points.
In fact such an argument would be sadly mistaken, because "sequence
points" are defined by the C standard and it'd be horribly wrong to
even _try_ claiming that the C standard knows about "volatile asms".
No, you didn't read:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html
Read the bit about the need for artificial dependencies, and the example
given there:
asm volatile("mtfsf 255,%0" : : "f" (fpenv));
sum = x + y;
The docs explicitly say the addition can be moved before the "volatile
asm". Hopefully, as you know, (x + y) is an C "expression" and hence
a "sequence point" as defined by the standard. So the "volatile asm"
should've happened before it, right? Wrong.
I know there is also stuff written about "side-effects" there which
_could_ give the same semantic w.r.t. sequence points as the volatile
access casts, but hey, it's GCC's own documentation, you obviously can't
find fault with _me_ if there's wrong stuff written in there. Say that
to GCC ...
See, "volatile" C keyword, for all it's ill-definition and dodgy
semantics, is still at least given somewhat of a treatment in the C
standard (whose quality is ... ummm, sadly not always good and clear,
but unsurprisingly, still about 5,482 orders-of-magnitude times
better than GCC docs). Semantics of "volatile" as applies to inline
asm, OTOH? You're completely relying on the compiler for that ...
No, there was (and is) _everything_ wrong about the "+" documentation as
applies to memory-constrained operands. I don't give a whit if it's
some workaround in their gimplifier, or the other, that makes it possible
to use "+m" (like the current kernel code does). The docs suggest
otherwise, so there's obviously a clear disconnect between the docs and
actual GCC behaviour.
[ You seem to often take issue with _amazingly_ petty and pedantic things,
by the way :-) ]
-
