From: "DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com>
Subject: Re: Pragma Volatile
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 02:03:11 GMT
Date: 2001-09-30T02:03:11+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <z3vt7.55695$QK.36751315@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m3ofnt26xq.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com
<minyard@acm.org> wrote in message news:m3ofnt26xq.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com...
> Tucker Taft <stt@avercom.net> writes:
>
> > There shouldn't be any problem if you are using this in a
mono-processor.
> (talking about volatiles not being important on uniprocessors).
>
> Note that this isn't true at all. Multiprocessors require special
> instructions for syncronization, but volatile is just as important on
> a uniprocessor as a multiprocessor
Go re-read Tuckers' post.
Keep in mind that when working on a multiprocessor system, the compiler
doesn't have any control over cache consistancy.
SteveD
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-09-30 2:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-09-25 14:07 Pragma Volatile Jon R. Harshaw
2001-09-25 14:23 ` David C. Hoos
2001-09-25 14:38 ` Marin David Condic
2001-09-25 23:03 ` Mark Johnson
2001-09-29 17:38 ` Tucker Taft
2001-09-29 18:22 ` minyard
2001-09-29 22:28 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-09-30 13:10 ` Robert Dewar
2001-09-30 21:19 ` Jeffrey Carter
2001-10-01 2:58 ` minyard
2001-10-02 9:38 ` AG
2001-10-02 10:59 ` Jeff Creem
2001-09-30 2:03 ` DuckE [this message]
2001-09-30 13:01 ` Robert Dewar
2001-09-30 20:12 ` minyard
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox