From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26887 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2007 00:53:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 26878 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2007 00:53:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from VLSI1.ULTRA.NYU.EDU (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:53:15 +0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA21897; Tue, 23 Jan 07 19:58:53 EST From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10701240058.AA21897@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 00:53:00 -0000 To: richard.guenther@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tree SRA and atomicity/volatility Cc: ebotcazou@adacore.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000701230924g37ed4f42vca8d7ae0c1ef6e52@mail.gmail.com> References: <200701061422.39157.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <45B63E9B.9090909@codesourcery.com> <84fc9c000701230924g37ed4f42vca8d7ae0c1ef6e52@mail.gmail.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01959.txt.bz2 > I agreed to fix the (possible) regression on the branches with Eric's patch. > I didn't agree to put the same fix on the mainline until we first had a > precise definition of what constraints the Ada frontend (seems to) put on > the middle-end. And with the further conversation it looks to me what > the Ada frontend does/wants isn't what it communicates to the middle-end. I'm missing something. I don't see this as language-specific: if you say "volatile", you mean "do as little mucking with these accesses as possible". Sure, that isn't defined in a formal matter, but it really can't be and we all know what it means in a pragmatic sense.