Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:14:41 -0700 (PDT) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe? |
| |
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > Marking volatile I think is out of the question. To start with, > > volatile creates really poor code (and most of the time we actually > > do want the code in critical sections to be as tight as possible). > > Poor code is better than broken code I would say.
No. A *working*compiler* is better than broken code.
There's no way to use volatile for these things, since it can hit *anything*. When the compiler generates buggy code, it's buggy code. We can't add volatiles to every single data structure. We'd be better off having a million monkeys on crack try to hand-assemble the thing, than having a totally buggy compiler do it for us.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |