lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 20:12:48 +0530 (IST) From: Satyam Sharma <satyam@...radead.org> To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org> cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, horms@...ge.net.au, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>, Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com, rpjday@...dspring.com, jesper.juhl@...il.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, zlynx@....org, 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 On Sat, 18 Aug 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > GCC manual, section 6.1, "When ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > is a Volatile Object Accessed?" doesn't say anything of the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > kind. ^^^^^ > > True, "implementation-defined" as per the C standard _is_ supposed to mean ^^^^^ > > "unspecified behaviour where each implementation documents how the choice > > is made". So ok, probably GCC isn't "documenting" this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > implementation-defined behaviour which it is supposed to, but can't really > > fault them much for this, probably. > > GCC _is_ documenting this, namely in this section 6.1. (Again totally petty, but) Yes, but ... > It doesn't ^^^^^^^^^^ > mention volatile-casted stuff. Draw your own conclusions. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ... exactly. So that's why I said "GCC isn't documenting _this_". Man, try _reading_ mails before replying to them ... - 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