volatile qualifier hurts single-threaded optimized case

[Paolo Carlini]

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 
> posted
> 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...

Paolo.