Heads-up: volatile and C++

[Robert Dewar]

Ken Raeburn wrote:

> That's what I thought.  So, unless the compiler (or language spec) is 
> going to become thread-aware, any data to be shared across threads needs 
> to be declared volatile, even if some other mechanism (like a mutex) is 
> in use to do some synchronization.  Which means performance would be 
> poor for any such data.

The use of shared variables without synchronization is rare in any case
in most code.
> 
> Which takes me back to: I think the compiler needs to be thread-aware.  
> "Enhancing" the meaning of volatile, with the attendant performance 
> issues, still doesn't seem adequate to allow for multithreaded 
> programming, unless it's used *everywhere*, and performance shoots 
> through the floor....

I don't see the point here, volatile is exactly intended to deal with
this situation