> True - there is a few cases where volatile can be used (I know too > little about security to say if using just volatile is ok from standard > POV). I guess you could reformulate my question into - "in most you > don't need volatile and many programmers use volatile as atomic despite > it does not mean that. Are you sure that your use case is legitimate?".
I have one use case which may not be legitimate academically (whatever that means), but in practice should be ok. I assume that access to a byte is always atomic and so I don't have to use a lock or other sync mechanisms. I think this is reasonable if my routine can tolerate cache delay (one thread already updating, another thread still using the old value). But I still need to tell the compiler to suppress its optimization, hence volatile. I think my use case is valid unless 4-bit processors are coming back. Or, unless cache delays are indefinitely long. Nice day Nor Jaidi Tuah PRIVILEGED/CONFIDENTIAL information may be contained in this message. If you are neither the addressee (intended recipient) nor an authorised recipient of the addressee, and have received this message in error, please destroy this message (including attachments) and notify the sender immediately. STRICT PROHIBITION: This message, whether in part or in whole, should not be reviewed, retained, copied, reused, disclosed, distributed or used for any purpose whatsoever. Such unauthorised use may be unlawful and may contain material protected by the Official Secrets Act (Cap 153) of the Laws of Brunei Darussalam. DISCLAIMER: We/This Department/The Government of Brunei Darussalam, accept[s] no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of this message in any manner whatsoever. Our messages are checked for viruses but we do not accept liability for any viruses which may be transmitted in or with this message. _______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list vala-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
