On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 08:07:56AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:04:57AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:32:58PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:

quoted

Before C/C++11, the closest thing to such a prohibition is use of
volatile, for example, ACCESS_ONCE().  Even in C/C++11, you have to
use atomics to get anything resembing this prohibition.

If you just use normal variables, the compiler is within its rights
to transform something like the following:

	if (a)
		b = 1;
	else
		b = 42;

Into:

	b = 42;
	if (a)
		b = 1;

Many other similar transformations are permitted.  Some are used to all
vector instructions to be used -- the compiler can do a write with an
overly wide vector instruction, then clean up the clobbered variables
later, if it wishes.  Again, if the variables are not marked volatile,
or, in C/C++11, atomic.

While I've heard you tell this story before, my mind keeps boggling how
we've been able to use shared memory at all, all these years.

It seems to me stuff should have broken left, right and center if
compilers were really aggressive about this.

Sometimes having stupid compilers is a good thing.  But they really are
getting more aggressive.

But surely we cannot go mark all data structures lodged in shared memory
as volatile, that's insane.

I'm sure you're quite worried about this as well. Suppose we have:

struct foo {
	unsigned long value;
	void *ptr;
	unsigned long value1;
};

And our ptr member is RCU managed. Then while the assignment using:
rcu_assign_ptr() will use the volatile cast, what stops the compiler
from wrecking ptr while writing either of the value* members and
'fixing' her up after?

This is a completely untenable position.

How do the C/C++ people propose to deal with this?