sön 2024-12-01 klockan 12:41 +0100 skrev Bertho Stultiens: > On 11/30/24 03:28, Curtis Dutton wrote: > > I wrote the initial hal port code. there is no reason that I know of > > why it is required. I was following what I saw in other hal code > > without really knowing if it was needed. > Rip it out! > Done. See PR#3199 for details. > > Not all instances of volatile are gone. Only there where they are used > as scalar arguments or return value. > > > > If the tests pass it's probably fine. I run components daily that > > depends upon hal_port so I'll catch it (and help with fallout / > > fixing ) if something goes wrong. > Tests pass. > > There should be a review to look into the other instances of volatile. > I've seen the use of some atomics/memory barriers in the code, but there > are many pointers used where volatile changes the code's load/store > behavior, which may be essential for shared memory to work properly. If I think right all accesses to shared memory should be volatile. Otherwise a read or write is not guaranteed.
Nicklas Karlsson _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
