From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-117332-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14074 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2005 01:37:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 14067 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jul 2005 01:37:19 -0000
Received: from gw-d.mimosa.com (HELO gw-d.mimosa.com) (216.126.78.97)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:37:19 +0000
Received: from redshift.mimosa.com (redshift.mimosa.com [192.139.70.107])
	by gw-d.mimosa.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j6H1ahOE009604;
	Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:36:43 -0400
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 01:37:00 -0000
From: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com>
Reply-To: "D. Hugh Redelmeier" <hugh@mimosa.com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
   Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com>,
   Mike Stump <mrs@apple.com>
Subject: Re: volatile semantics
In-Reply-To: <m3fyues6ks.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507162125380.1478@redshift.mimosa.com>
References: <851D2CB0-93DF-4C49-A6A8-8895DB1A08F9@apple.com>
 <42778D99.7070904@codesourcery.com> <b0f8ff9938df57bbfda0ec3aea4fc02b@apple.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507161250120.1478@redshift.mimosa.com> <1121532997.29893.6.camel@linux.site>
 <m3oe92v5ij.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <1121548071.6761.7.camel@linux.site>
 <m3slyetpgp.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
 <Pine.LNX.4.61.0507161821590.1478@redshift.mimosa.com>
 <m3fyues6ks.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00696.txt.bz2

| From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>

|  After many exchanges via private mails and
| looking at the various reports related to this issue, it has become
| clear to me that the interpretations offered to justify why GCC is
| behaving the way it does seem to go beyond what can be inferred.

OK.

Is there a consensus on this?  If not, how can a consensus be reached?

If so, how can we get a fix?

I think that is urgent.  This bug is causing X to misbehave and the
current workarounds might be harmful.  Who knows what other
manifestations might be lurking?

As I said, I'm not a GCC hacker.  Who is the likely maintainer to fix
this?  Does he or she agree that this needs to be done?  Urgently?