No, because in practice that "wait until" operation will act as a memory barrier. The obvious one is a function call. Functions are allowed to have side effects, one possible side effect is to change the value pointed to by an externally-received pointer.
At lower levels, you might have something like an IPC primitive there, which would be protected by a spinlock or similar abstraction, the inline assembly for which will include a memory barrier.
And even farther down still, the memory pointed to by "x" might be shared with another async context entirely and the "wait for" operation might be a delay loop waiting on external hardware to complete. In that case this code would be buggy and you should have declared the data volatile.
> No, because in practice that "wait until" operation will act as a memory barrier.
This is a wrong, a memory barrier would not salvage this code from UB. The read from `x` must at the very least be synchronized, and there might be other UB lurking as well.
No, synchronization is a different issue entirely. The question upthread was whether it was OK for the compiler to optimize the code to return a constant zero without actually reading from the pointer. And it's not, because any reasonable implementation of "wait for" will defeat aliasing analysis.
You're right that if you try to write async code with only compiler instrumentation, you're very likely to be introducing race conditions (to be clear: not necessarily on architectures with sufficiently clear memory ordering behavior -- you can play tricks like this in pure C with x86 for instance). But that wasn't the question at hand.
At lower levels, you might have something like an IPC primitive there, which would be protected by a spinlock or similar abstraction, the inline assembly for which will include a memory barrier.
And even farther down still, the memory pointed to by "x" might be shared with another async context entirely and the "wait for" operation might be a delay loop waiting on external hardware to complete. In that case this code would be buggy and you should have declared the data volatile.