This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>, "linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "akpm at linux-foundation dot org" <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, "mingo at kernel dot org" <mingo at kernel dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 17:24:14 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52F3DA85 dot 1060209 at arm dot com> <20140206185910 dot GE27276 at mudshark dot cambridge dot arm dot com> <20140206192743 dot GH4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1391721423 dot 23421 dot 3898 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20140206221117 dot GJ4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1391730288 dot 23421 dot 4102 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <20140207042051 dot GL4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140207074405 dot GM5002 at laptop dot programming dot kicks-ass dot net> <20140207165028 dot GO4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <20140207165548 dot GR5976 at mudshark dot cambridge dot arm dot com> <20140207180216 dot GP4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1391992071 dot 18779 dot 99 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <CA+55aFwFVr2KiXX2MObMBGypQk9eabe-93Nhmro=HL1RtC-1jw at mail dot gmail dot com> <1391994986 dot 18779 dot 169 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> (a) seems to say that you don't like requiring programmers to mark
> atomic accesses specially. Is that the case?
In Paul's example, they were marked specially.
And you seemed to argue that Paul's example could possibly return
anything but 0/0.
If you really think that, I hope to God that you have nothing to do
with the C standard or any actual compiler I ever use.
Because such a standard or compiler would be shit. It's sadly not too uncommon.
Linus