From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: holler@ahsoftware.de (Alexander Holler) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 01:34:05 +0100 Subject: [lttng-dev] current_thread_info() not respecting program order with gcc 4.8.x In-Reply-To: References: <52803E5D.3050109@mentor.com> <52851395.3010306@mentor.com> <67652521.68027.1384482849638.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1691607547.70809.1384874952002.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <528E2E8E.8080004@ahsoftware.de> <528E94E2.3080102@ahsoftware.de> Message-ID: <528EA67D.5080901@ahsoftware.de> Am 22.11.2013 01:17, schrieb Linus Torvalds: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Alexander Holler wrote: > Basically, your whole argument boils down to "if the function did > something else than what it does, then it wouldn't be const, so we > shouldn't mark it const". But that argument is BULLSHIT, because the > fact is, the function *doesn't* do what you try to claim it does. Maybe gcc just makes the same false conclusion as I did in my description. I read it as current_thread_info() returns "a pointer to something local" instead of returns "a pointer". Might be BULLSHIT but would explain the bug which seems to exist. Alexander Holler