volatile qualifier hurts single-threaded optimized case
Wed Aug 30 11:56:00 GMT 2006
Richard Guenther wrote:
> I got from Paolo that we do not care about rope anyway, so I'll ignore
> that in
> the following. Patches for mt_allocator and pool_allocator have been
> and discussed here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2006-07/msg00031.html
> I think the pool_allocator patch is not safe because it changes
> function signatures,
> while the mt_allocator patch is still applicable to v3.
Too bad, because the pool_allocator patch seemed absolutely safe from
every possible point of view. I'm afraid the same cannot be said about
the mt_allocator patch: in that case we *do* have a long standing race
in the deallocation function (in Bugzilla) and if only part of Hans
reasoning applies to that specific code, I would not remove the volatiles...
More information about the Libstdc++