On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:18:25 -0700 (PDT)
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

quoted text
> 
> 
> On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Chris Snook wrote:
> > 
> > Some architectures currently do not declare the contents of an atomic_t to be
> > volatile.  This causes confusion since atomic_read() might not actually read
> > anything if an optimizing compiler re-uses a value stored in a register, which
> > can break code that loops until something external changes the value of an
> > atomic_t.
> 
> I'd be *much* happier with "atomic_read()" doing the "volatile" instead.
> 
> The fact is, volatile on data structures is a bug. It's a wart in the C 
> language. It shouldn't be used. 

Why? It's a wart! Is it due to unclear C standard on volatile related point?

Why the *volatile-accesses-in-code* is acceptable, does C standard make it clear?

-- Jerry

quoted text
> 
> Volatile accesses in *code* can be ok, and if we have "atomic_read()" 
> expand to a "*(volatile int *)&(x)->value", then I'd be ok with that.
> 
> But marking data structures volatile just makes the compiler screw up 
> totally, and makes code for initialization sequences etc much worse.
> 
> 		Linus
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/