Hi,
'volatile' just doesn't really do what you think it should do. The
PowerPC architecture is too complicated w.r.t. ordering of reads and
writes. In other words, you can't trust it.
It's not sufficient on PowerPC.
It might be necessary, depending on the compiler's mood for moving
Making the target of foo volatile properly rechecks the condition on
each iteration.
OTOH my PPC box runs fine, so I'm probably missing something obvious.
Probably because the IO accessors do -both- volatile casts and
add the barriers :-)
Ben.
Just wondering - is there a case where using volatile for UCC parameter RAM for
example will not work, or is the use of I/O accessors everywhere an attempt to
be portable to other architectures?
I'm asking because I really want to know ;)
--
Michael Barkowski
905-482-4577
Michael Barkowski wrote:
Just wondering - is there a case where using volatile for UCC parameter RAM
for example will not work, or is the use of I/O accessors everywhere an
attempt to be portable to other architectures?
'volatile' just doesn't really do what you think it should do. The
On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Michael Barkowski wrote:
Just wondering - is there a case where using volatile for UCC
parameter RAM for example will not work, or is the use of I/O
accessors everywhere an attempt to be portable to other
architectures?
'volatile' just
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Michael Barkowski wrote:
Just wondering - is there a case where using volatile for UCC
parameter RAM for example will not work, or is the use of I/O
accessors everywhere an attempt to be portable to other architectures?
Michael Barkowski wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
Michael Barkowski wrote:
Just wondering - is there a case where using volatile for UCC
parameter RAM for example will not work, or is the use of I/O
accessors everywhere an attempt to be
