Re: -fno-tree-cselim not working?

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Andrew Haley <aph-gcc@littlepinkcloud.COM> writes:

> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> 
>  > As I understand it, the draft C++0x memory model has acquire release
>  > semantics for annotated variables.  Of course, it wouldn't help the
>  > originalk test case unless the global variable was annotated.
> 
> Mmm, but one of the authors of the draft C++0x memory model tells me
> that the controversial optimization gcc is performing is definitely
> illegal under that model, regardless of how the variables are
> annotated.  I haven't yet got deep enough into the working paper to be
> able to point you at exactly where it says so.

I was wrong, and you are right.

(I just checked with our local C++ standards representative, who also
done a great deal of work on the memory model.)

Ian