This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: atomic accesses
>>>>> "Segher" == Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> writes:
Segher> Good point. Suggestions for better wording? How does
Segher> "any access to a naturally aligned scalar object in memory
Segher> that is not a bit-field and fits in a general purpose integer
Segher> machine register, will be performed by a single machine
Segher> instruction whenever possible"
Segher> or
Segher> "any access to a naturally aligned scalar object in memory
Segher> that is not a bit-field and not bigger than a long int, will
Segher> be performed by a single machine instruction whenever
Segher> possible"
Segher> sound?
As I said before, I think any words of this form SHOULD NOT be added.
All it does is add words to the documentation that provide NO
guarantee of anything -- but in a way that will confuse those who
don't read it carefully enough into thinking that they DID get some
sort of guarantee.
In other words, a statement like that has clear negative value.
paul