Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761467AbXJYOzU (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:55:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754621AbXJYOzI (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:55:08 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:53608 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757251AbXJYOzG (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:55:06 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:55:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Nick Piggin cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Kleen, Andi" Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe? In-Reply-To: <200710251324.49888.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Message-ID: References: <200710251324.49888.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1858 Lines: 42 On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Andi spotted this exchange on the gcc list. I don't think he's > brought it up here yet, but it worries me enough that I'd like > to discuss it. Are you surprised? The gcc developers seem to have had a total disregard for what people want or need, and every time some code generation issue comes up, there's a lot of people on the list that do language-lawyering, rather than admit that there might be a problem. It's happened before, it will happen again. I don't think it's true of all gcc developers (or even most, I hope), but it's common enough. For some reason, compiler developers seem to be far enough removed from "real life" that they have a tendency to talk in terms of "this is what the spec says" rather than "this is a problem". Happily, at least in this kind of situation, threading is a real issue for other projects than just the kernel, so maybe it gets solved properly. But I have to admit that for the last five years or so, I've really wanted some other compiler team to come up with a good open-source compiler. Exactly due to issues like this (Q: "Gcc creates bogus code that doesn't work!" A: "It's not bogus, it's technically allowed by the language specs that don't talk about xyz, the fact that it doesn't work isn't our problem"). I think the OpenBSD people decided to actually do something about this, and I suspect it had *nothing* to do with license issues, and everything to do with these kinds of problems. I wish them all the luck, although personally I think LLVM is a much more interesting project. Linus - 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/