Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752661AbaBNTTx (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:19:53 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64780 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751838AbaBNTTv (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:19:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework From: Torvald Riegel To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Linus Torvalds , Will Deacon , Ramana Radhakrishnan , David Howells , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "mingo@kernel.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" In-Reply-To: <20140214095011.GG27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20140207074405.GM5002@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140207165028.GO4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140207165548.GR5976@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20140207180216.GP4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1391992071.18779.99.camel@triegel.csb> <20140211155941.GU4250@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1392185194.18779.2239.camel@triegel.csb> <20140212091907.GA3545@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1392354475.18779.3849.camel@triegel.csb> <20140214095011.GG27965@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:19:13 -0800 Message-ID: <1392405553.18779.4373.camel@triegel.csb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 10:50 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 09:07:55PM -0800, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > That depends on what your goal is. First, I don't know why you quoted that, but without the context, quoting it doesn't make sense. Let me repeat the point. The standard is the rule set for the compiler. Period. The compiler does not just serve the semantics that you might have in your head. It does have to do something meaningful for all of its users. Thus, the goal for the compiler is to properly compile programs in the language as specified. If there is a deficiency in the standard (bug or missing feature) -- and thus the specification, we need to have a patch for the standard that fixes this deficiency. If you think that this is the case, that's where you fix it. If your goal is to do wishful thinking, imagine some kind of semantics in your head, and then assume that magically, implementations will do just that, then that's bound to fail. > A compiler that we don't need to fight in order to generate sane code > would be nice. But as Linus said; we can continue to ignore you lot and > go on as we've done. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that you need to specify semantics, and the place (or at least the base) for that is the standard. Aren't you guys the ones replying "send a patch"? :) This isn't any different. If you're uncomfortable working with the standard, then say so, and reach out to people that aren't. You can surely ignore the specification of the language(s) that you are depending on. But that won't help you. If you want a change, get involved. (Oh, and claiming that the other side doesn't get it doesn't count as getting involved.) There's no fight between people here. It's just a technical problem that we have to solve in the right way. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/