Tomash Brechko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - the compiler should not introduce speculative stores to the shared > objects. This is what my original question was about. I haven't > read all the papers yet, so one thing is still unclear to me: it > seems like atomic variables will be annotated as such > (atomic<int>). But I found no proposal for annotation of > non-atomic objects that are protected by the ordinary locks (like > mutexes). Will the compiler be forbiden to do all speculative > stores, or how will it recognize shared objects as such?
In practice, gcc will provide a variable attribute to mark the variable as atomic. The language standard does not forbid speculative stores to non-atomic objects. Ian
