Re: [PR51752] publication safety violations in loop invariant motion pass

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>]

On 02/27/12 11:02, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
> > > > For that matter, didn't rth add a memory barrier at the beginning of
> > > > transactions last week?  That would mean that we can't hoist anything
> > > > outside of a transaction anyhow.  Or was it not a full memory barrier?
> > >
> > > It's now a full memory barrier for all global memory and for local statics
> > > if their address is taken (and for automatic vars with their address taken).
> > > Do we need to be concerned about non-address-taken local statics?
> >
> > It is my understanding that non-address-taken local statics are not
> > visible to other threads,
>
> void f () { static int i; i++; }
>
> Running 'f' in different threads will expose the storage to 'i' to each of
> them without taking its address :-/

In that case, shouldn't we make transactions barriers for local statics 
as well, regardless of if their address was taken or not?