[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <2d2eeab6276cab2e6cc5830d36a43b98@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:47:07 +0200
From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org>
Cc: horms@...ge.net.au, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, ak@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, cfriesen@...tel.com,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, zlynx@....org,
clameter@....com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures
>>> What you probably mean is that the compiler has to assume any code
>>> it cannot currently see can do anything (insofar as allowed by the
>>> relevant standards etc.)
>
> I think this was just terminology confusion here again. Isn't "any code
> that it cannot currently see" the same as "another compilation unit",
It is not; try gcc -combine or the upcoming link-time optimisation
stuff, for example.
> and wouldn't the "compilation unit" itself expand if we ask gcc to
> compile more than one unit at once? Or is there some more specific
> "definition" for "compilation unit" (in gcc lingo, possibly?)
"compilation unit" is a C standard term. It typically boils down
to "single .c file".
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists