Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: bug #22163 (atomic not working as expected inC++)

[Joerg Wunsch]

As David Brown wrote:

> Eric suggested making "some_temp_variable" volatile, which is the
> traditional way to enforce ordering in C programming.  Strictly
> speaking, you don't have to make it volatile - it's enough to make
> sure it is in memory if cli() and sei() have memory blocks.

Yes, but again: forcing the variable into memory is a pessimization.
It's not required for the job, but something like that is currently
the only way to force the compiler into doing what the programmer
intended.

(suggested language extension)

> I'm not sure there is any way to give a solid definition of the
> semantics of "volatile" here.  And I suspect that you'll have
> /slightly/ more difficulty getting this into mainline gcc than for
> other extensions such as 0b binary constants...

Yeah, sure.  No, this won't be me to implement it...

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)