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


On Mar 30, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Is forcing word-alignment too big of a hammer, or will the users for these
>> architectures be content with having no support for the C++0x memory model?
> 
> I think a memory model that cannot be reasonably (read: also fast) implemented
> on all HW is screwed from the start and we should simply ditch it.  Which
> is because nobody will use it as you cannot rely on it when writing
> portable programs or it will be hell slow.

I agree 100%.  If the standards people can't write a decent standard, they ought not write it.  I torpedoed someone refining volatile, which would have been nice to have, because people were laying tracks down the wrong way.  Nuke em from orbit I say.  Now, I'm sure we have it all wrong and the standard is entirely reasonable...  right?


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