From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net>, Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>,
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [gimple] assignments to volatile
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:00:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikA1Co=3xExKeGLRR6fEe1QydsXK2z1GLaFb6oe@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4C651330.5000102@codesourcery.com>
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:41 AM, Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 07/16/10 16:20, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>>
>>> Is there consensus on what the semantics should be?
>>>
>>> Any suggestions as to how to move forward?
>>
>> In the abstract, I think the EDG semantics make the most sense. I
>> think the VC++ semantics are plausible, but extreme. I think the
>> various in-between states that GCC has adopted over the years are just
>> woefully inconsistent.
>>
>> So, my first preference would be to adopt the EDG semantics, and my
>> second preference would be to adopt the VC++/trunk semantics. My
>> preference for the EDG semantics is somewhat offset to some extent by
>> the fact that our current semantics are "more like" GCC's past behavior,
>> i.e., they are more backward-compatible.
>
> There seems to have been no responses to your suggestion. Can we move
> forward to reviewing the updated patch itself?
>
> The patch is http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02145.html
> and Richard indicated he'd review it once semantics were agreed.
>
Your patch caused:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45361
--
H.J.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-20 17:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-21 12:44 Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-21 13:26 ` Richard Guenther
2010-06-21 13:55 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-21 14:07 ` Richard Guenther
2010-06-21 14:09 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-21 14:17 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-21 14:19 ` Richard Guenther
2010-06-21 14:53 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-21 14:17 ` IainS
2010-06-21 14:24 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-21 14:50 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-21 15:24 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-22 11:36 ` Dave Korn
2010-06-23 20:16 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-24 11:51 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-21 15:24 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-21 15:46 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-22 15:37 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-22 15:37 ` Jakub Jelinek
2010-06-22 15:57 ` Paul Koning
2010-06-22 15:47 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-22 15:58 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-23 11:38 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-23 14:05 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-23 14:06 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-23 16:00 ` Richard Guenther
2010-06-23 16:25 ` Paul Koning
2010-06-23 17:13 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-23 19:16 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-24 10:22 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-24 15:53 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-24 16:00 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-24 19:37 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-25 9:37 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-25 19:06 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-25 21:33 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-26 9:35 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-26 10:18 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-26 12:18 ` Richard Guenther
2010-06-26 19:52 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-26 19:57 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-26 20:08 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-26 22:13 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-06-28 9:20 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-28 9:27 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-26 10:20 ` Richard Kenner
2010-06-28 9:52 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-30 22:52 ` Mike Stump
2010-07-05 8:59 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-07-09 5:27 ` Mike Stump
2010-07-09 7:22 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-07-16 8:10 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-07-16 15:20 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-07-19 8:41 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-08-13 9:56 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-08-18 15:32 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-08-18 16:18 ` Richard Guenther
2010-08-18 18:04 ` Mike Stump
2010-08-19 11:11 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-08-20 4:22 ` Mark Mitchell
2010-08-20 16:59 ` Mike Stump
2010-08-20 18:00 ` H.J. Lu [this message]
2010-08-20 18:33 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-25 9:20 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-24 10:23 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-24 17:05 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-24 17:29 ` Paul Koning
2010-06-25 9:26 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-25 18:20 ` Mike Stump
2010-06-28 8:49 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-07-01 1:02 ` Mike Stump
2010-07-05 9:02 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-07-09 5:14 ` Mike Stump
2010-07-09 7:20 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-22 15:56 ` Paul Koning
2010-06-22 12:08 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-22 12:25 ` Richard Guenther
2010-06-22 13:12 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-22 13:54 ` Nathan Sidwell
2010-06-22 15:21 ` Michael Matz
2010-06-22 16:12 ` Joseph S. Myers
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='AANLkTikA1Co=3xExKeGLRR6fEe1QydsXK2z1GLaFb6oe@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=matz@suse.de \
--cc=mikestump@comcast.net \
--cc=nathan@codesourcery.com \
--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).