Re: spinlock

Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk)
Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:36:30 +0000 (GMT)


> Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> writes:
>
> I thought that the trick was only there to work around a bug in older
> versions of gcc. The proper use of volatile should be enough to get
> the compiler to do the right thing, but at one point gcc didn't.

We used volatile in several places to work around problems with gcc 2.4.*
(and maybe 2.5.* although I think not) where it could move memory writes through
memory clobbers.

I doubt we need it any more for such cases

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