> > Why is it a compiler bug. You've not declared that variable to be volatile
> > therefore it is only touched in the code flow the compiler is analysing.
>
> Even without volatile, the compiler is very arguably buggy if it writes
> values to your variables that were never supposed to be there.
>
> Take this, for example:
>
> sig_atomic_t value = 1;
>
> int fn()
> {
> value = 2;
> }
>
> And a signal comes in. Even without the volatile, if gcc has written
> _anything_ else than 1 or 2 into the variable, gcc is BROKEN.
imagine
typedef volatile int sig_atomic_t;
> There's no point being a language lawyer and saying that gcc "could write
> anything to value before it writes the final 2". Tha's not true. A compile
> rthat does that is
>
> (a) buggy as hell from a POSIX standpoint
> (b) even apart from POSIX, from a Q-of-I standpoint complete and utter
> crap.
Imagine this:
if (likely(foo))
c = 1
else c = 2
I could see it optimized as
c = 1
if (unlikely(foo))
c = 2
Given enough register pressure.... I've seen similar optimalizations proposed
in "advanced compilers" book.
Pavel
PS: but wrapping access to current->flags in macro is probably okay for now.
I just wanted to show that writing unwanted value is not as broken as you
think.
-- Philips Velo 1: 1"x4"x8", 300gram, 60, 12MB, 40bogomips, linux, mutt, details at http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/velo/index.html.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/