RE: quandary with pthreads

["Gary R. Van Sickle" <g dot r dot vansickle at worldnet dot att dot net>]

You're welcome.

-- 
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot. 

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 05:38:50PM +0100, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:37:37AM -0600, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote:
> >> >Ok, attached is what I'd try if I was set up to try it.  I've 
> found that you
> >> >pretty much always need the "volatile" after the __asm__, or the 
> newer gccs want
> >> >to optimize your assembly away, even if they should be able to 
> tell that you've
> >> >got side-effects.
> >>
> >> AFAIK, there is a volatile after the __asm__.
> >>
> >> How about a standard unified diff so that it is easy to see what 
> you changed?
> >
> >I didn't specified it when i put the asm stuff it into a c source file.
> >You might have a look at the version that i created.
> >
> >AFAICT the only changes between Garys inline asm version and mine is the
> >addition of the missing volatile.
> >Anyway, i have attached a diff.
> 
> Sigh.  So, to clarify, I had a version of things which you admitted
> worked when you changed them from inline.  You indicated that you'd just
> taken my versions and adapted them.  My versions used volatile, yours
> didn't.
> 
> Then Gary offered to help.  I pointed him at my versions.  Instead, I
> infer, he looked at your versions and noticed that volatile was missing.
> And, voila, adding volatile fixed the problem.
> 
> Nope.  I'm not going to look at this.  One or both of you need to
> clarify what is going on here.  Sending a diff where nearly every line
> is changed (thanks to gratuitous formatting difference?) is not a help.
> 
> I certainly appreciate the effort involved in tracking down the problem.
> I would appreciate a little more effort in showing what the problem
> actually was.
> 
> cgf
>