On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> it's the other way around, it's needed and gcc trapped a kernel bug.
No it's not.
> If the contents of memory not declared volatile changes under GCC (like
> it can happen right now for xtime since it's declared non volatile), gcc
> has the full rights to crash the kernel at runtime.
If we care abotu the thing always having the same value, we HAVE to use a
lock. "volatile" is not the answer.
Show me a place where we care.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 23 2001 - 21:00:17 EST