This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++11 atomic library notes
On 10/05/2011 10:44 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. The rule for 'volatile' from the
language is just that "Accesses to volatile objects are evaluated
strictly according to the rules of the abstract machine." If the
instruction-level implementation for a 16-byte atomic load is
cmpxchg16b, then that's just how the abstract machine is implemented,
and the rule says you have to do that consistently for volatile
objects rather than sometimes optimizing it away. That's my argument
anyway. If there's another standard you're following beyond "kernel
people tend to ask for it," the situation may be trickier.
perfect, I like it.