http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #22 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27
08:45:52 UTC ---
If the C or C++ standards say that vv1 = vv2 should behave as if the copy was
elementwise then the frontends need changing. Certainly not the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #21 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-20
11:43:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
It seems to me that volatile reads/writes should get their own gimple
statements, not be part of a larger block move. So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #19 from Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-16
19:41:29 UTC ---
It seems to me that volatile reads/writes should get their own gimple
statements, not be part of a larger block move. So instead of
vv1 = vv2;
we should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45472
--- Comment #20 from Zdenek Sojka zsojka at seznam dot cz 2012-02-16 20:14:54
UTC ---
I can think of two use-cases from threaded environment:
- using the volatile member as a semaphore for the structure
- when one needs to assure some data will
