[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708171002410.3666@enigma.security.iitk.ac.in>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:06:20 +0530 (IST)
From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
To: David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>
cc: "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all
architectures
[ Your mailer drops Cc: lists, munges headers,
does all sorts of badness. Please fix that. ]
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > There is a quite convincing argument that such an access _is_ an
> > access to a volatile object; see GCC PR21568 comment #9. This
> > probably isn't the last word on the matter though...
>
> I find this argument completely convincing and retract the contrary argument
> that I've made many times in this forum and others. You learn something new
> every day.
>
> Just in case it wasn't clear:
> int i;
> *(volatile int *)&i=2;
>
> In this case, there *is* an access to a volatile object. This is the end
> result of the the standard's definition of what it means to apply the
> 'volatile int *' cast to '&i' and then apply the '*' operator to the result
> and use it as an lvalue.
True, see my last mail in this sub-thread that explains precisely this :-)
Satyam
-
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