This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
To: Tomash Brechko <tomash dot brechko at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:33:56 +0100
Subject: Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
References: <20071028.183730.37179404.davem@davemloft.net> <200710300920.28894.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <20071030090024.GE4906@moonlight.home>

> volatile can be properly used _only_ if you also assume atomicity and
> cache-coherence, and this is beyond POSIX.  But anyway, I'm proving
> the opposite: when you use POSIX locks, you don't have to use
> volatile, that it.

We're not talking about locks, see the example you gave in your first message.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: Tomash Brechko

References:
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: David Miller
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: Tomash Brechko

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]