https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
Paul McKenney changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paulmckrcu at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #7 from Paul McKenney ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Generally GCCs middle-end considers volatile stores (or loads) to not have
> any side-effects that are not visible in the IL. That includes (synchronous)
> rai
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104800
--- Comment #21 from Paul McKenney ---
> Given C++ abandoned 'volatile' I would rather suggest to document
> better ways of achieving that and if existing ways are too cumbersome
> we should see a way to do this without altering behavior on 'vol
