Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Since Visual C++ 2005, Microsoft has made additional ordering guarantees for accesses to volatile types which are not required by the C++ Standard.
Does anything in the C++ Standard actually forbid these guarantees? The Microsoft documentation seems to think so.
Please let me know whether the Standard allows the ordering implemented by Microsoft, and also vote on this bug report:
An implementation is certainly allowed to do things beyond on what is required as long as it meets the requirements set forth by the standard. Adding release/acquire semantics to
volatileobject is definitely within scope. I don’t think there is interest in the C++ committee to change the semantics (we are just starting a new week of discussing C++ in Portland with Herb right now talking about how to organize the meeting).