[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFx4pwET2w-iusOvh2XNMAidrZAkURuZLyPsW0Ovf_rr-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:04:44 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> IOW, I wrote that such a compiler transformation would be wrong in my
> opinion. Thus, it should *not* return 42.
Ahh, I am happy to have misunderstood. The "intuitively" threw me,
because I thought that was building up to a "but", and misread the
rest.
I then react stronly, because I've seen so much total crap (the
type-based C aliasing rules topping my list) etc coming out of
standards groups because it allows them to generate wrong code that
goes faster, that I just assume compiler people are out to do stupid
things in the name of "..but the standard allows it".
Linus
--
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