From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19844 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2014 20:41:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19771 invoked by uid 48); 30 Oct 2014 20:41:25 -0000 From: "torvald at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/59448] Code generation doesn't respect C11 address-dependency Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 21:08:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: torvald at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg02417.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448 --- Comment #21 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to torvald from comment #17) > (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #15) > > So have we concluded that we should promote memory_order_consume to > > memory_order_acquire for now? > > I also think that this is the best way forward. I believe everyone in ISO > C++ SG1 agreed that this is basically a defect in the standard. To clarify, my impression from the discussion was that there was general consensus that memory_order_consume as specified now wouldn't achieve what it was intended to in practice, due to the implementation issues. IOW, it's not useful even though it's not a defect in the sense of being inconsistent or plain wrong.