"Diego Novillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 26 Oct 2007 14:24:21 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What do people think of this patch? This seems to fix the problem > > case without breaking Michael's case. It basically avoids store > > speculation: we don't write to a MEM unless the function > > unconditionally writes to the MEM anyhow. > > I think it couldn't hurt. Providing it as a QOI feature might be > good. However, we should predicate these changes on a -fthread-safe > flag. More and more of these corner cases will start popping up.
It appears that the draft C++0x memory model prohibits speculative stores. Therefore I now think we should aim toward prohibiting them unconditionally. That memory model is just a draft. But I think we should implement it unconditionally when it exists. Ian
