This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: volatile semantics
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 23:28 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>
> | On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 19:35 +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> | > Daniel Berlin wrote:
> | > >>> object volatile).
> | > >>
> You don't make people happier by transmutating their programs into
> faster executable with (what they think) wrong semantics where there is no
> way you can clearly and unambiguously justify those transformations.
Again, you try and posit it your view as clear and unambiguous when it
simply isn't.
It's not even close to that.
Personally, I actually give less of a crap about volatile and optimizing
volatile than i do const, restrict, etc. As long as you guys aren't
going to start claiming this type of "Oh well, now my object is
volatile, and now it's not, and now it is again, and now it's not. Look
at me, i'm dancing!" for other things, it's fine by me.
Also, if we are going to play the "well, volatile is just different
game", and you want no optimization whatsoever when someone says
"volatile", then fine. I really have no problem with that. I'll also
simply point all the bug reports we get about "volatile not being
optimized well" (sadly, we have them, take a gander :( ) to you or
whoever wants to explain what semantic you think is correct.