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: Heads-up: volatile and C++


>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net> writes:

 >> Michael N. Moran wrote: I'm very much in favor of fine grained
 >> synchronization primitives in the compiler, but not of changes to
 >> volatile semantics.

 Paul> I wonder if it would be sufficient (if not preferable) to only
 Paul> extend (modify) the semantics for heap/stack and const volatile
 Paul> variables, as enforcing existing volatile semantics for such
 Paul> variables are at best of questionable existing value....

I'm not sure I completely understand, but volatile heap variables are
perfectly meaningful today.  For example, if I need to define a
communication data area for the program to talk to some DMA I/O
device, a volatile struct, or a struct some of whose members are
volatile, allocated on the heap, makes perfect sense.

	  paul


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