From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
To: richard.guenther@gmail.com
Cc: ebotcazou@adacore.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tree SRA and atomicity/volatility
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10701061352.AA21122@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000701060531g4b2da007mf5434b3fce63ec24@mail.gmail.com>
> The problem is really that the middle-end doesn't have a good
> definition of volatile semantics on a structure. At least not what
> you want from it.
As was discussed in another thread a while ago, the middle-end doesn't wreally
have a good definition of volatile semantics AT ALL: a lot of it is just "do
what we used to do".
My feeling is that the proper semantics of volatile are that the access
pattern in the generated code should match, as closely as the underlying
machine allows, the access pattern in the source. Unfortunately, this is an
informal, and hence necessarily imprecise, definition, but I think it might
be the best we can do. It's certainly consistent with past practice.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-06 13:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-06 13:19 Eric Botcazou
2007-01-06 13:31 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-06 13:47 ` Richard Kenner [this message]
2007-01-06 13:49 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-07 11:23 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-08 11:30 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-08 11:52 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-08 12:43 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-08 13:12 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-08 13:40 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-08 14:55 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-12 13:57 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-12 16:36 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-12 17:03 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-14 7:47 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-14 14:57 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-19 13:58 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-23 16:58 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-01-23 17:15 ` Daniel Berlin
2007-01-23 17:24 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-23 19:38 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-01-23 20:57 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-23 22:07 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-01-24 1:39 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-24 13:33 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-24 1:31 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-24 9:27 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-24 13:02 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-24 13:33 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-24 13:57 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-24 18:31 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-01-24 23:57 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-25 9:38 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-25 11:38 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-25 16:32 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-01-25 16:41 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-25 18:29 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-25 22:03 ` Mike Stump
2007-01-26 2:37 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-01-26 2:44 ` Mike Stump
2007-01-26 2:54 ` Mark Mitchell
2007-01-26 9:17 ` Richard Guenther
2007-01-26 10:12 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-01-26 13:40 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-26 13:13 ` Richard Kenner
2007-01-26 19:21 ` Mike Stump
2007-01-24 0:53 ` Richard Kenner
2007-03-02 14:55 ` Eric Botcazou
2007-03-02 15:21 ` Diego Novillo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=10701061352.AA21122@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu \
--to=kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu \
--cc=ebotcazou@adacore.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).