On 2025/6/26 11:48, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jun 2025 at 19:44, Tiwei Bie <tiwei....@antgroup.com> wrote: >> >> The behavior of gcc and clang differs. Clang's behavior appears to be >> related to the volatile qualifier in arch_spinlock_t: > > Ahh. That kind of makes sense.
I also just noticed it today after taking a closer look. > > At the same time, I think clang is being stupid here. Yes, it makes > sense to treat volatile specially in this way - just not for an > initializer. > > I realize that initializers can be made to be their own data > structures in modern C (ie taking the address of an initializer and > using the initializer itself as an argument to a function call, for > example), but when an initializer is used to set the value of a > variable, the only real thing there is that variable. That makes sense! > > Oh well. The patch certainly looks fine and I obviously already merged > the pull request. Yeah, I saw that. Thanks! :) > It does make me go "I wonder how many other places > clang just generates stupid code due to this". +1. Regards, Tiwei
