[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4722265C.7050907@nortel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:39:40 -0600
From: "Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, davids@...master.com,
"Torvalds, Linus" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kleen, Andi" <ak@...e.de>,
"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe?
Andrew Haley wrote:
> We're listening, really. It's unacceptable that gcc should break
> code.
In that case a conversion of a conditional branch to an unconditional
write to a visible variable is not an acceptable behaviour. Aside from
the kernel issues, it would break any number of threaded userspace apps.
As was mentioned elsewhere, it's akin to sprinkling
int j = i; i = j;
throughout the code. If "i" is accessed by multiple threads, this is
not allowed unless a lock is held.
Chris
-
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