On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:28:35PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > How about a request for gcc to formally honor the current uses of volatile? > > Seems harder to define, but, sure, if it can be made to work. Actually, I am instead preparing to take this up with the standards committee. Even those who hate volatile (of which there are many) have an interest in a good codification of the defacto definition of volatile. After all, without a definition how can they hope to replace it? ;-) And the C committee cares deeply about backwards compatibility, so getting a good definition will help there as well. Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>