[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTilKr6wr_wAE0nzXDsffWYWNdGf2_EqMXzRSKJMu@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:40:07 -0700
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Palfrader <peter@...frader.org>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org,
stable-review@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk, Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 134/149] x86, paravirt: Add a global synchronization point
for pvclock
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 07/14/2010 12:32 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:00 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>> On 07/14/2010 11:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There are some discussions on:
>>>>
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02001.html
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-07/msg00001.html
>>>>
>>>> Are they related?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not directly as far as I can tell.
>>>
>>> The issue is if gcc can ever reorder, duplicate or elide a volatile
>>> operation (either asm volatile or a volatile-annotated memory
>>> reference.) In my (and Linus') opinion, this would be an incredibly
>>> serious bug.
>>
>> Is there a gcc bug for this?
>>
>
> Are you asking for a bug report against the documentation? We're not
> sure what the semantics intended by the gcc team to be, which I guess is
> a documentation bug.
>
Documentation bug is also a bug :-).
--
H.J.
--
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