[cpp-threads] memory model

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 4/29/05, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 15:31:06 -0700, "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com> wrote:
> 
> > I think the main argument for redefining volatile is that it's
> > currently very unclear what it means.  Even Itanium compilers
> > don't agree.  Across architectures, it's hopeless.
> 
> I expected that changing volatile semantics would be controversial

Apart from "what constitutes an access to an object that has volatile-
qualified type is implementation-defined" stuff, you use volatiles for
sig_atomic_t statics and whatever locals subject to modifications 
between setjmp() and longjmp(). Both have really nothing to do with 
threads. C/C++ volatile is nothing but totally brain-dead hack, and 
it's simply too late to "fix" it.

regards,
alexander.