[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170625104516.17ac9466@inria.fr>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 10:45:16 +0200
From: Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr>
To: musl <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: more on missing volatile qualifications
Hi,
I forced my compiler into reporting inconsistencies concerning the
usage (or not) of volatile, and I came up with three other spots that
I would like to patch. These are
- the definition of pthread_once_t
- the definition of pthread_spinlock_t
- the handler array in sigaction.c
All three could benefit for an additional volatile qualification. All
their usages are already so, so this would just be conservative and
not risk any incompatibilities, I think.
Also, I can't think of any semantics for the three, where opitimizing
out loads or stores makes any sense, so this also should never see any
kind of performance regression.
Jens
--
:: INRIA Nancy Grand Est ::: Camus ::::::: ICube/ICPS :::
:: ::::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 ::
:: :::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 ::
:: ::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::
:: http://icube-icps.unistra.fr/index.php/Jens_Gustedt ::
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
