Re: Alpha problems...
> If it ignores 'volatile' and causes things to happen in the wrong order,
> then the appropriate adjective is not 'very optimal', it is 'broken'.
Heh. Yes that would be true, if we were talking about C code.
However, this had to do with whether or not gcc could reorder certain
*asm* statements with no declared side effects, which is beyond the
scope of what C is; the issue was subtle enough that it got over dozen
messages on the gcc2 list... the documentation had a text-vs-example
inconsistency, which I expect has been fixed, but meant that some
linux kernel code assumed that certain asms wouldn't be moved around,
while the compiler had actually given no guarantee of this, and the
optimizer finally caught up. It was *not* any misinterpretation of
volatile in the context of *C* itself...
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: