Re: how to cast away 'volatile'?

[Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

Andrew Haley wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke writes:
>  > Andrew Haley wrote:
>  > > Michael Eager writes:
>  > >> It can also be used to share data between threads, but it becomes
>  > >> problematic if accesses are not atomic.  It's reasonable to use a
>  > >> shared volatile sig_atomic_t to communicate between threads, to say
>  > >> "I'm done" or "Start processing". 
>  > > 
>  > > Is that really safe, though?  There's nothing to stop the machine from
>  > > reordering memory writes, even if the compiler doesn't.
>  > 
>  > ...my understanding is that is exactly what 'fence' is for.
>
> That's my understanding too.  Here, we're really talking about non-x86
> processors which have much weaker ordering guarantees.

On non-x86 processors I actually resort to pthread mutexes :-) (at least 
until/unless I have inline assembly implementations for those...)

So far no one has successfully answered my original question; how do I 
suppress these dang warnings? :-)

--
Matthew
HIPPOS feel unacknowledged. HIPPOS get angry.
> PRAISE HIPPOS
HIPPOS seem somewhat placated.