Ville Voutilainen via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]> hat am 02.05.2024 20:47 EEST geschrieben:

 

 

On Thu, 2 May 2024 at 20:44, Martin Uecker via Liaison

<liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:

 

The two problems we discussed for C were

1. even when we require those stores (I see no problem there),

it is difficult to make sure that the information does not

leak in a different way, e.g. because registers or other

stack area are not cleared. WG14 was content with making the

intent clear.

We have Recommended Practice that we can use for the intent.

 

2. if there is UB afterwards then the extreme interpretation

of UB (which WG14 later rejected) makes the complete program have

no meaning.

That's a separable problem (because we have a separate proposal for an

optimization barrier),

but if it's a volatile write, it's an optimization barrier because the

volatile write is an observable effect.

So I don't think this is a problem.