http://bugzilla.gdcproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126
--- Comment #24 from Iain Buclaw <ibuc...@gdcproject.org> --- (In reply to Jens Bauer from comment #23) > (In reply to Johannes Pfau from comment #22) > > The volatileLoad/Store intrinsics will have to suffice. > > Are these guaranteed to be in the specified order for volatileLoad/Store, > assuming a, b, c and d are different memory locations: > > read a > write b > read c > read d > > -Or would the compiler be able to mess up the order ? Compiler reordering should never mess up order of program logic to variables/objects where changes are considered 'observable' (eg, on shared data). Most re-ordering/memoization happens on 'non-observable' data such as local variables, thread-local storage. However, that certainly doesn't stop certain C-like behaviours from occuring in the optimiser. Such include crash-inducing operations like divide by zero may be pushed forward to occur before volatile load/reads or actions with side-effects. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
