On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 08:09:13AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 04:59:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

gcc bugzilla bug #33102, for whatever that ends up being worth.  ;-)

I had totally forgotten that I'd already filed that bug more
than six years ago until they just closed yours as a duplicate
of mine :)

Good luck in getting it fixed!

Well, just got done re-opening it for the third time.  And a local
gcc community member advised me not to give up too easily.  But I
must admit that I am impressed with the speed that it was identified
as duplicate.

Should be entertaining!  ;-)

Right. ROTFL... volatile actually breaks atomic_t instead of making it 
safe. x++ becomes a register load, increment and a register store. Without 
volatile we can increment the memory directly.

No code does (or would do, or should do):

	x.counter++;

on an "atomic_t x;" anyway.