Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types

From	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Newsgroups	comp.unix.programmer
Subject	Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types
Date	2011-06-08 11:09 +0100
Message-ID	<87tyc0eitf.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <pan.2011.06.07.05.50.49.375000@nowhere.com> <6ec30746-62a1-4ae5-96c1-9fe0e0043364@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <pan.2011.06.07.21.48.22.453000@nowhere.com> <87vcwh5lqh.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <LpidnS-t1qGWKXPQnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica>

Show all headers | View raw

gordonb.lhpq6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
>>> "volatile" was added to ANSI C to deal with the specific case that many
>>> generally-useful optimisations can be problematic in a very few, very
>>> specialised cases (e.g. accessing memory-mapped hardware).
>>>
>>> I've always interpreted it as "don't optimise this", something which
>>> should only be necessary if optimisations are enabled in the first place.
>>> As such, I wouldn't expect its presence to cause the compiler to emit
>>> anything which it would never emit in its absence.
>
> One of the problems with this is that there is no definition of
> "unoptimized".

That's a problem with the term 'optimization' when used in this
context. Given that 'optimizing compilers' rarely - if ever - produce
'optimal code' and if so, only by accident, and that this
'optimization' consequently isn't an 'optimization' at all, neither
when considering the literal meaning of the word nor its common
mathematic definition, the best course of action in this respect would
be to avoid using it at all: When applied to 'code transformators',
its usage is entirely political -- the 'compiler consumer' is supposed
to suspend his own critical thinking in favour of blindly believing
that whatever code transformation someone happens to have coded into a
compiler will always be beneficial, actually, even 'optimal', in any
given situation because - see - it's called 'optimization', while the
reality is, of course, that the majority of 'compiler optimizations'
are exactly as useful as unconditional micro-optimization of code
always happens to be -- at best, they neither hurt nor help and more
often than not, they actually do hurt.

Regarding 'volatile', things become much clearer when restricting
oneself to the terminology the C-standard uses for this: A C-program
is composed of a sequence of expressions which are evaluated according
to their defined semantics. Provided it can be proven that not
evaluating a specific expression won't change the result of the
program, the evaluation may be omitted. In this particular case, the
expressions in questions are those who 'access' objects, meaning,
determine their present value without modifying it. Assuming that b is
a pointer to some object, *b is an expression accessing this
object. Evaluating it corresponds to executing whatever code happens
to be necessary to 'determine' what happens to be stored at the memory
locations b points to. In absence of volatile, this may be omitted if
the compiler already knows the value which will reside there at
execution time. Otherwise, the code necessary for evaluating *b is
supposed to be generated unconditionally.

How 'the memory system' itself deals with this code is something which
happens at a lower level of abstraction than the one provided by the C
language and insofar what the memory system will do is not what
happens to be necessary, something machine-specific might need to be
done in order to counter that *if possible*. Eg, at least for the ARM9
MMU (the only one I've ever written code for myself), cachability of
accesses to specific virtual memory locations is controlled by
attributes in the corresponding parts of the page table(s). When
accessing memory-mapped device registers, the corresponding virtual
addresses obviously need to be marked as 'uncacheable' for the 'access
code' generated by the C compiler to actually hit those registers, but
the compiler itself still needs to be instructed to actually generate
this code.

Thread

threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de> - 2011-05-31 21:07 +0200
  Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-31 22:44 +0200
    Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-01 11:58 +0100
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-06-01 14:15 +0200
        Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-06-02 13:49 +0200
          Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 13:40 +0100
  Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-31 22:50 +0100
  Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-31 21:32 -0400
    Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-01 12:35 +0100
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-01 23:01 -0400
        Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 11:22 +0100
          Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 07:52 -0400
            Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 13:38 +0100
              Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 21:27 -0400
  Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-01 12:55 -0700
    Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-01 22:54 +0100
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Alex Fraser <me@privacy.net> - 2011-06-02 21:00 +0100
        Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-04 21:53 -0700
          Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-05 16:39 +0100
            Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-06 18:48 -0700
              Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-07 06:50 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-07 06:04 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-07 22:48 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 23:18 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types gordonb.lhpq6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-07 18:28 -0500
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-08 11:09 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 14:32 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-09 18:10 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-10 15:26 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-10 16:49 +0000
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-10 19:07 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-10 13:13 -0700
              Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 12:55 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-07 06:02 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 16:05 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:37 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-14 21:43 +0000
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 03:07 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 10:22 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-06-15 09:40 +0000
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 13:20 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-06-15 13:19 +0000
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 17:41 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-15 20:20 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 17:31 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 18:31 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 13:32 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 22:19 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-16 05:02 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 23:23 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 10:12 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 02:53 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-08 10:19 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-10 16:50 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-15 20:24 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-16 22:11 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 04:43 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-19 01:43 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-19 13:35 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 17:06 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-20 16:22 +0000
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-20 19:16 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-21 17:30 +0000
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-21 13:02 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 14:32 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-21 17:05 +0000
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 17:01 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-22 01:55 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 03:36 -0700
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-02 21:53 -0700
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-03 04:24 -0700
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-03 07:52 -0400
  Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-02 00:23 +0200
    Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 20:11 -0700
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-02 22:54 +0200
        Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:03 -0700
          Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-03 02:49 +0200
            Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 17:54 -0700
              Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 21:36 -0400
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-03 16:25 +0100
            Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-03 03:12 +0200
  Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-02 00:45 +0200
    Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 11:26 +0100
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Alex Fraser <me@privacy.net> - 2011-06-02 21:05 +0100
  Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 20:21 -0700
    Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 11:31 +0100
      Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:12 -0700
        Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 17:54 +0100
          Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:00 -0700
            Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-03 15:19 +0100
              Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 15:50 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-05 16:46 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 15:28 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-06 13:35 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 09:19 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 09:26 -0700
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 09:43 +1200
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 13:29 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 09:04 +1200
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-08 12:34 +0100
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 07:37 +1200
                Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 14:55 -0700

csiph-web