RE: -fno-tree-cselim not working?

["Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>]

On 26 October 2007 17:28, Andrew Haley wrote:

> Richard Guenther writes:
>  > >
>  > > This is legal POSIX threads code: counter is not accessed when we do
>  > > not hold the mutex.  According to POSIX we do not have to declare
>  > > volatile memory that we only access when we hold a mutex.
>  >
>  > I hope we're not trying to support such w/o volatile counter.
> 
> I think we have to: not just for POSIX, but for the Linux kernel too.
> 
>  > Whatever POSIX says, this would pessimize generic code too much.
> 
> We don't have to do it for non-threaded code.

  I certainly won't object to any move to prohibit the
read-conditional-add-write (and related) optimisation(s) when compiling with
an option that explicitly specifies that we are compiling multi-threaded code.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....