On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Once a user-created non-dependent pointer is assigned to, it is OK to
> > break the dependency.
>
> Ok, that's good.
> >
> > Or am I missing the point here?
>
> I was just trying to make sure we were on the same page. I wonder if
> marking this volatile would be sufficient for prototyping. I suspect
> we would need another flag somewhere which someone with gimple
> knowledge might be able to help us with.
I expect that marking it as volatile would do the trick. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
> regards
> Ramana
>
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > > Ramana
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Does this sounds like a workable plan for ? Let me know your
> > > >> > thoughts. If this sounds good then, we can do this for all the
> > > >> > optimizations that may kill the dependencies at somepoint.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -Akshat
> > >
> >
>
