| |||||||||||||
Betrayed by a bitfieldBetrayed by a bitfieldPosted Feb 6, 2012 21:16 UTC (Mon) by chrisV (subscriber, #43417)In reply to: Betrayed by a bitfield by dlang Parent article: Betrayed by a bitfield
"no, the item in question wasn't related to interrupts, but the cause of the problem causes the same problem if interrupts were involved."
Not it doesn't. Memory access issues relating to multiple threads (or multiple processes in the case of shared memory) have nothing to do with interrupts, and nothing to do with volatile.
This really is beating a dead horse. Compiler switches are available to ensure memory consistency for the case in question, notably the -pthread switch. I can see why the kernel doesn't want to, or can't, use that. In that case the kernel authors need to write some assembler or use 64-bit values on architectures where it is important, or persuade the gcc developers to provide another compiler switch dealing with this particular problem.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||