Re: volatile qualifier hurts single-threaded optimized case

["Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On 8/30/06, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
> > This is becoming slightly off-topic, but I'm interested to understand
> > this detail better, I think there is also something about it in that
> > long thread but there were different opinions. Therefore, you are saying
> > that, in gcc at least, using plain pointers together with volatile
> > memory is ok? I seemed to remember that, in some cases, in gcc, the type
> > of the pointer counts "more" than the type of the memory, so to speak.
>
> I'm interested too, but Richard, may I suggest you start a new thread
> that is appropriately titled, and post a patch (or two patches, one
> your way one Han's way) based on the current state of libstdc++.

I got from Paolo that we do not care about rope anyway, so I'll ignore that in
the following.  Patches for mt_allocator and pool_allocator have been posted
and discussed here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2006-07/msg00031.html
I think the pool_allocator patch is not safe because it changes
function signatures,
while the mt_allocator patch is still applicable to v3.

If there is really interest I can re-post that.

Richard.