Re: [PATCH] Fix the cpumask rewrite

[Chris Wedgwood]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 09:32:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Now, I personally am not a big believer in the "volatile" keyword
> itself, since I believe that anybody who expects the compiler to
> generate different code for volatiles and non-volatiles is pretty
> much waiting for a bug to happen

I recently had to change jiffies_64 (include/linux/jiffies.h) to be
volatile as gcc produced code that didn't work as a result of it.

Clearly in some cases gcc does know about volatile and does produce
'the right thing' --- I don't really see why people claim volatile is
a bad thing, there are clearly places where we need this and gcc seems
to do the right thing.


  --cw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/