Re: [PATCH] doc: volatile considered evil

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 9 May 2007, Alan Cox wrote:

> arch/foo almost always supports a single compiler too - gcc. We simply
> don't support anything else. We use gcc inlines and features extensively.
> 

Ok, so your "acceptable use clause" of your addition should include that 
fact.  That the volatile type qualifier is legitimate when developing a 
new architecture and the only implementation you support for compilation 
of such text has a one-to-one correspondence between actual and abstract 
machine semantics.

> [1] ANSI C says access to the padding fields of a struct is undefined.
> ANSI C also says that struct assignment is a memcpy. Therefore struct
> assignment in ANSI C is a violation of ANSI C...
> 

Padding bytes are unspecified, not undefined.  I doubt ANSI C says 
padding bytes are undefined because then any implementation that pads 
members of a struct object would not be strictly conforming.

		David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/