Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 09:53:03 +0200
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
[slightly off topic: GCCisms in Linux kernel]
It contains *many* constructs that are not defined in, for
example, C99, and it would in fact be impossible to write the Linux
kernel using only C99-compliant constructs.
True. On the other hand, it is possible to keep large parts of the
kernel independent of compiler implementation details. And it is not
only possible but also beneficial, e.g. because the compiler's
implementation changes over time.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-=-=== -=-= -==--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Heikki Orsila
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- References:
- [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Jonathan Corbet
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Satyam Sharma
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Satyam Sharma
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: H. Peter Anvin
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: Satyam Sharma
- Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- From: H. Peter Anvin
- [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] spelling fixes: arch/frv/
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] "volatile considered harmful", take 3
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
