[#1207] warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...>

This message was posted to ruby-talk, but I didn't get responce from

22 messages 2003/07/01
[#1208] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/01

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1209] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/02

ts wrote:

[#1210] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/02

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1211] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1212] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1213] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1214] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/04

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@itgrp.net> writes:

[#1215] Re: warning in ruby extension eats memory — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...> 2003/07/04

ts wrote:

[#1237] FTP.new with block — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

Hi,

22 messages 2003/07/19
[#1238] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — ts <decoux@...> 2003/07/19

>>>>> "G" == Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

[#1240] Re: [Patch] FTP.new with block — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...> 2003/07/19

[#1297] Fix for Bug 1058 — Markus Walser <walser@...>

Hi,

16 messages 2003/07/25

Re: stack problem

From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2003-07-23 20:34:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #1292
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

> Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> >   volatile char *p = bp - size;
> >   (void)*p;
> > Is this resistant to heavy optimisation?
> Such "optimization" should be wrong.  If a volatile variable is
> memory mapped I/O, just reading is meaningful.  If a compiler
> does reduce it, the compiler has a bug in the optimizer.
> IIRC, all optimization for volatile access must be suppressed.

Ok, sounds right, after all.

I used to use memory-mapped I/O that was sensitive in that way, e.g.
EGA/VGA 4-plane video memory, and 6809 TRS80 I/O ports, but I was doing
all of that in assembly language or BASIC. I stopped doing that before I
switched to Linux. That was a long time ago =)

> However, I noticed that there is no check for volatile.  Does anyone
> know from when autoconf has AC_C_VOLATILE?

I think I already asked what non-ANSI C platforms Ruby supports, but
no-one has answered me on that. Are there relevant non-conformant
compilers out there? All ANSI C compilers should have "volatile".

________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard                       http://artengine.ca/matju


In This Thread