[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwTrt_6m1inNHQkk74i7uPkHNnacwHiBgioZSXieAs5Sw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 10:49:11 -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 Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I think a major benefit of C11's memory model is that it gives a
> *precise* specification for how a compiler is allowed to optimize.
Clearly it does *not*. This whole discussion is proof of that. It's
not at all clear, and the standard apparently is at least debatably
allowing things that shouldn't be allowed. It's also a whole lot more
complicated than "volatile", so the likelihood of a compiler writer
actually getting it right - even if the standard does - is lower.
They've gotten "volatile" wrong too, after all (particularly in C++).
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