This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++
- From: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
- To: schlie at comcast dot net
- Cc: mike at mnmoran dot org, jason at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:34:08 -0400
- Subject: Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++
- References: <BE856289.9D2Bemail@example.com>
>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Schlie <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.