[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <528EA67D.5080901@ahsoftware.de>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:34:05 +0100
From: Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
lttng-dev@...ts.lttng.org, Nathan Lynch <Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Luis Lozano <llozano@...omium.org>,
Bhaskar Janakiraman <bjanakiraman@...omium.org>,
Han Shen <shenhan@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc 4.8.x
Am 22.11.2013 01:17, schrieb Linus Torvalds:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de> wrote:
> Basically, your whole argument boils down to "if the function did
> something else than what it does, then it wouldn't be const, so we
> shouldn't mark it const". But that argument is BULLSHIT, because the
> fact is, the function *doesn't* do what you try to claim it does.
Maybe gcc just makes the same false conclusion as I did in my description.
I read it as current_thread_info() returns "a pointer to something
local" instead of returns "a pointer". Might be BULLSHIT but would
explain the bug which seems to exist.
Alexander Holler
--
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