This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Tree SRA and atomicity/volatility
On Jan 25, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
But, once you write it down, you get to figure out how to make sure
that
the entire compiler honors it, including the machine-independent
TREE-SSA bits. Since the sensible choices may be different for each
CPU, how to enforce the right constraints (either separately for each
CPU, or some superset of all of them) may not be easy.
Well, you know not writing it down doesn't absolve us from having to
get it right anyway. I'd further say that writing it does should not
constrain us from fixing the wording if the wording is broken, but I
agree, if we write it down, it would be better to have the right
theoretic answer and leave unspecified those bits that should be.