------- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-09 03:19 -------
> That's why I think we should have a generic option that disables optimizations
> which are safe only in sequential programs (and -fopenmp would imply that
> option).
So it sounds like you don't any thing about threading programming. People have
to use mutexes and such to get safe code storing/accessing in globals no matter
what, even if it looks like it is thread safe or not because of the way threads
act. I don't see how this is different from knowning when programs access
memory in some random way.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|major |normal
Component|tree-optimization |middle-end
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31862
