Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937158AbXHOWnb (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:43:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S937120AbXHOWmm (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:42:42 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:46531 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937113AbXHOWmj (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:42:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:42:33 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" To: Segher Boessenkool Cc: horms@verge.net.au, Stefan Richter , Satyam Sharma , Linux Kernel Mailing List , rpjday@mindspring.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de, cfriesen@nortel.com, Heiko Carstens , jesper.juhl@gmail.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , zlynx@acm.org, clameter@sgi.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, Chris Snook , Herbert Xu , davem@davemloft.net, Linus Torvalds , wensong@linux-vs.org, wjiang@resilience.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently across all architectures Message-ID: <20070815224233.GP9645@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <46C30540.2070603@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070815145207.GA23106@gondor.apana.org.au> <46C3253F.5090707@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <20070815162722.GD9645@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070815185724.GH9645@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070815201748.GN9645@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <96f3fa3929d873263891fefadb222431@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <96f3fa3929d873263891fefadb222431@kernel.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1690 Lines: 38 On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:52:53PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>I think this was just terminology confusion here again. Isn't "any > >>code > >>that it cannot currently see" the same as "another compilation unit", > >>and wouldn't the "compilation unit" itself expand if we ask gcc to > >>compile more than one unit at once? Or is there some more specific > >>"definition" for "compilation unit" (in gcc lingo, possibly?) > > > >This is indeed my understanding -- "compilation unit" is whatever the > >compiler looks at in one go. I have heard the word "module" used for > >the minimal compilation unit covering a single .c file and everything > >that it #includes, but there might be a better name for this. > > Yes, that's what's called "compilation unit" :-) > > [/me double checks] > > Erm, the C standard actually calls it "translation unit". > > To be exact, to avoid any more confusion: > > 5.1.1.1/1: > A C program need not all be translated at the same time. The > text of the program is kept in units called source files, (or > preprocessing files) in this International Standard. A source > file together with all the headers and source files included > via the preprocessing directive #include is known as a > preprocessing translation unit. After preprocessing, a > preprocessing translation unit is called a translation unit. I am OK with "translation" and "compilation" being near-synonyms. ;-) Thanx, Paul - 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/