Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 11:24:06AM +0100, Bert Wesarg wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> If it does this after opal_atomic_lock() (which is explicit memory
>>> barrier) then it is broken.
>> Than, gcc 4.1.1 on the amd64 architecture is broken:
> And can you repeat the test please, but make "test" variable to be global
> to tell compiler that it can be actually accessed by more then one
> thread.
>
ahh, now both produce nearly the same code.
but who hurts it to declare the variable volatile?
Bert
|
![[Flag]](../../../../../community/mirrors/flag-us.gif){kind=small}