> Frankly, you realise the consequences of volatile access, you have > this comment: > > /* Avoid reading __gthread_active twice on the main code path. */ > int __gthread_active_latest_value = __gthread_active; > > > Now, do you really believe that every multithreaded program should use > volatile, and then should copy shared data to temporal storage, just > because volatile is such a hammer?
No, I just wanted to point out that "volatile" has a well-defined semantics and can be properly used for shared accesses. In other words, it's not all or nothing like your earlier message[*] seemed to imply. [*] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00663.html -- Eric Botcazou
