[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <18215.1394.294830.944162@zebedee.pink>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:20:34 +0000
From: Andrew Haley <aph@...hat.com>
To: "David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
Cc: "Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Is gcc thread-unsafe?
David Schwartz writes:
>
> > Well, yeah. I know what you mean. However, at this moment, some
> > gcc developers are trying really hard not to be total d*ckheads
> > about this issue, but get gcc fixed. Give us a chance.
>
> Can we get some kind of consensus that 'optimizations' that add
> writes to any object that the programmer might have taken the
> address of are invalid on any platform that supports memory
> protection?
That's what the proposed standard language says, kinda-sorta. There's
an informal description at
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2338.html.
Anyway, we have fixed this bug and are committing it to all open gcc
branches. Credit to Ian Taylor for writing the patch.
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
-
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