Re: [PATCH] mark read_crX() asm code as volatile

[Andi Kleen]

> 
> How does the compiler know it doesn't depend on memory?

When it has no m (or equivalent like g) constrained argument 
and no memory clobber.
 
> How do you say it depends on memory?

You add any of the above.

> You really need something as heavy as volatile?

You could do a memory clobber, but it would be heavier than the volatile
because the memory clobber clobbers all cached variables. volatile essentially 
just says "don't remove; has side effects". Normally gcc does that automatically
for something without outputs, but this one has.

Besides a CRx access does not actually clobber memory.

-Andi
-
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/