Commit 65f95ff2 authored by SeongJae Park's avatar SeongJae Park Committed by Paul E. McKenney

documentation: Clarify compiler store-fusion example

The compiler store-fusion example in memory-barriers.txt uses a C
comment to represent arbitrary code that does not update a given
variable.  Unfortunately, someone could reasonably interpret the
comment as instead referring to the following line of code.  This
commit therefore replaces the comment with a string that more
clearly represents the arbitrary code.
Signed-off-by: default avatarSeongJae Park <sj38.park@gmail.com>
Acked-by: default avatarDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
parent f36fe1e7
...@@ -1550,7 +1550,7 @@ of optimizations: ...@@ -1550,7 +1550,7 @@ of optimizations:
the following: the following:
a = 0; a = 0;
/* Code that does not store to variable a. */ ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
a = 0; a = 0;
The compiler sees that the value of variable 'a' is already zero, so The compiler sees that the value of variable 'a' is already zero, so
...@@ -1562,7 +1562,7 @@ of optimizations: ...@@ -1562,7 +1562,7 @@ of optimizations:
wrong guess: wrong guess:
WRITE_ONCE(a, 0); WRITE_ONCE(a, 0);
/* Code that does not store to variable a. */ ... Code that does not store to variable a ...
WRITE_ONCE(a, 0); WRITE_ONCE(a, 0);
(*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless (*) The compiler is within its rights to reorder memory accesses unless
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment