Re: VM-related Oops: 2.4.15pre1

[John Alvord <jalvo@mbay.net>]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:39:29 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@transmeta.com> wrote:

>
>On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>>
>> You can in theory get even stranger effects. Consider
>>
>> 	if(!(flag&4))
>> 	{
>> 		blahblah++;
>> 		flag|=4;
>> 	}
>>
>> The compiler is completely at liberty to turn that into
>>
>> 	test bit 2
>> 	jz 1f
>> 	inc blahblah
>> 	add #4, flag
>> 1f:
>
>That's fine - if you have two threads modifying the same variable at the
>same time, you need to lock it.
>
>That's not the case under discussion.
>
>The case under discussion is gcc writing back values to a variable that
>NEVER HAD ANY VALIDITY, even in the single-threaded case. And it _is_
>single-threaded at that point, you only have other users that test the
>value, not change it.
>
>That's not an optimization, that's just plain broken. It breaks even
>user-level applications that use sigatomic_t.
>
>And note how gcc doesn't actually do it. I'm not saying that gcc is broken
>- I' saying that gcc is NOT broken, and we depend on it being not broken.

Imagine if the storage address involved was an I/O register which was
memory mapped. An arbitrary storage of data might have disasterous
effects.

john alvord