From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-01 07:27:56
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>> C'mon, volatile is brain-dead.
>> Nobody's arguing otherwise. ;-) But a nop it isn't.
> I think Alexander is arguing that without a clear definition of what
> it means for a memory access to be "observable",
A memory access is observable if and only if the variable is volatile.
> the fact that
> volatile memory accesses are "observable behaviour" doesn't prevent
> them from being optimised away under the as-if rule.
A compiler is not allowed to alter the observable behavior under the "as if"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk