On Wed, 8 Dec 2021 at 16:49, Martin Sebor wrote: > I don't anticipate this change to lead to the same fallout > because it's unlikely for GCC to synthesize invalid memory > orders out of thin air;
Agreed. I don't think we'll have the same kind of issues. 99% of uses of memory orders just use the constants explicitly, passing them directly to the std::atomic member functions (or something that calls them). >and b) because the current solution > can only detect the problems in calls to atomic functions at > -O0 that are declared with attribute always_inline. This > includes member functions defined in the enclosing atomic > class but not namespace-scope functions. To make > the detection possible those would also have to be > always_inline. If that's a change you'd like to see I can > look into making it happen. I think we can ignore the namespace-scope functions in <atomic>. Most people do.
