Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?

[Mark Mielke]

Michael Matz wrote:
> Yes, and of course GCC doesn't move stores or loads over functions calls.  
> That's not the issue at all.  The issue is, that people want to write 
> this:
>   if (condition)
>     *p = value;
> (i.e. without any synchronization primitive or in fact anything else after 
> the store in the control region) and expect that the store indeed only 
> happens in that control region.  And this expectation is misguided.
If this is correct (condition makes no function calls and no volatiles 
are used, then I understand and agree.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>