This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [cxx-mem-model] bitfield tests

From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 07:56:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [cxx-mem-model] bitfield tests
References: <4D92103E.90100@redhat.com> <AANLkTinhL-oAOyXfDhcoMD7iE8FLRSuJ7FvH-MGqO4Rk@mail.gmail.com> <4D933A2E.9030105@redhat.com> <AANLkTi=9XUrhoX=aDKe4gpAXZTQzjbGHynRhfq-d2+=L@mail.gmail.com> <4D949416.5000307@redhat.com> <AANLkTik1B3amz16SJxNc8YD3r7bt9goMPU3xuKL0mG4J@mail.gmail.com> <4D95FC41.5060003@redhat.com> <BANLkTinViVtLVWuH+qmnizQDKDOqZMkxyg@mail.gmail.com>

But well, I guess the thing I don't like about the standard is that it makes
people that have started to be somewhat aware about threading issues
_less_ aware of them by providing some "false" safety to them.  It
really smells like a standard designed for a very high-level language
where people don't have to think instead of a standard suitable for a
C family language.

Well, that's not exactly true. You still need to think about threading. All the standard is doing is guaranteeing that if you already have a data race free program, the compiler won't add additional races not already there.

But I'm not a C++ guy. I am no advocate for the standard. I'm just implementing stuff. Ahem, I'm just a soldier in this war :).

Aldy

References:
- Re: [cxx-mem-model] bitfield tests
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [cxx-mem-model] bitfield tests
  - From: Richard Guenther

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