lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
    From
    On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-02-15 20:41    [W:4.048 / U:0.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site