Re: [PATCH] Tree SRA and atomicity/volatility

[Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com>]

> I don't think it's papering over anything.  It just may not be the
> complete solution.  The fact that it's not complete doesn't mean it's
> not a good start.  Is there some more generic, over-arching mechanism
> that you think will solve the whole problem?  That's a serious question,
> but my expectation is that there's nothing for it but to handle this
> case-by-case, in which case Eric's approach is a fine step.

Thanks for stepping in, especially on the right side. ;-) ;-)

> Yes, test cases are good.  If Eric's patch didn't have a test case, then
> one should be added.

I posted an Ada testcase somewhere in the thread, I'll add it to gnat.dg if 
the patch is formally approved.

> My concern is that we not block incremental progress just because we
> don't have a 100% solution.

For the time being we haven't detected any other regressions pertaining to 
atomicity support in the 4.x series of Ada compilers.  Of course that may 
change in the future, but I don't expect problems as serious as this one.

-- 
Eric Botcazou