Re: spinlock

David Wragg (dpw@doc.ic.ac.uk)
29 Nov 1999 20:26:54 +0000

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: David Wragg: "Re: AVL trees vs. Red-Black trees"
Previous message: Gerard Roudier: "Re: spin_unlock optimization(i386)"
Maybe in reply to: wu_yb: "spinlock"

Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz> writes:
> We should not do such tricks. gcc 2.95 may not be clever enough, but
> gcc 3.05? egcs people are doing subtle tricks, and we should be very
> carefull.

I thought that the trick was only there to work around a bug in older
versions of gcc. The proper use of volatile should be enough to get
the compiler to do the right thing, but at one point gcc didn't.

David Wragg

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

Next message: David Wragg: "Re: AVL trees vs. Red-Black trees"
Previous message: Gerard Roudier: "Re: spin_unlock optimization(i386)"
Maybe in reply to: wu_yb: "spinlock"