> On Dec 30, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Matt Godbolt <m...@godbolt.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I agree with Andrew. My understanding of volatile is that the generated
>> code must do exactly what the abstract machine would do.
>
> That makes sense. I suppose I don't understand what the difference is
> in terms of an abstract machine of "load; add; store" versus the
> "load-add-store". At least from on x86, from the perspective of the
> memory bus, there's no difference I'm aware of.
That was my point. The model needs to treat those two as equivalent, otherwise
the model is constructed by theories that I don’t understand.
paul
