This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: atomic accesses

From: David Daney <ddaney at avtrex dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Paul Koning <Paul_Koning at dell dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:46:23 -0800
Subject: Re: atomic accesses
References: <7a2009f68ad10e2c5b9b232a31eab9eb@kernel.crashing.org> <47CCB8F2.9080507@adacore.com> <3ac64412b4dc5aa3c5af8cb60999e4e4@kernel.crashing.org> <47CCCB38.3060701@adacore.com> <20080304155523.GH3726@sunsite.mff.cuni.cz> <18381.31084.161467.974361@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <47CD7AC9.5010407@redhat.com> <20080304165719.GK3726@sunsite.mff.cuni.cz> <47CD959E.5010506@avtrex.com> <84fc9c000803041035m414084d8v9ebfb884e1cf6672@mail.gmail.com>

Richard Guenther wrote:

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 7:31 PM, David Daney <ddaney@avtrex.com> wrote:

 Perhaps anything declared volatile should have these semantics.
 Although mentioning 'volatile' on the lkml is probably not a good idea.
Certainly not. volatile has nothing to do with atomic access.

It was more of an idle thought than a proposal.

David Daney

References:
- atomic accesses
  - From: Segher Boessenkool
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Segher Boessenkool
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Paul Koning
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Jakub Jelinek
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: David Daney
- Re: atomic accesses
  - From: Richard Guenther

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]