[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.0.99.0705091321470.26189@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:25:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> arch/foo almost always supports a single compiler too - gcc. We simply
> don't support anything else. We use gcc inlines and features extensively.
>
Ok, so your "acceptable use clause" of your addition should include that
fact. That the volatile type qualifier is legitimate when developing a
new architecture and the only implementation you support for compilation
of such text has a one-to-one correspondence between actual and abstract
machine semantics.
> [1] ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
> ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
> assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C...
>
Padding bytes are unspecified, not undefined. I doubt ANSI C says
padding bytes are undefined because then any implementation that pads
members of a struct object would not be strictly conforming.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists