Daniel Jacobowitz wrote on 27 August 2008 16:15:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:45:25PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Jay wrote on 27 August 2008 09:55:
>>
>>> Yeah that's probably ok.
>>> Volatile is enough to force the ordering?
>>
>> Absolutely; it's a defined part of the standard that all volatile
>> side-effects must complete in-order. GCC will not move code past a
>> volatile operation.
>
> It's still not sufficient without a memory barrier.
Yes, you're right. Of course, if we just don't cache mask at all, the
problem goes away.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
