pasaulais wrote: > > In this case, MMRAs would only help in the sense that you won't need any > > new attributes and can just add an MMRA such as > > `atomic-lowering:fine-grained`. It's not really what MMRAs were made for > > (because this attribute doesn't affect semantics, just lowering style I > > think?), > > It is semantics. You get undefined behavior if you access fine grained memory > for an atomic where the instruction doesn't handle it. I don't think it quite > fits into the MMRA box, since it isn't about the synchronization properties > of the memory access but where the underlying memory is
@arsenm That makes sense, I don't think MMRA fits the fine-grained use case either. Does that mean we can stick with the approach from this PR? @b-sumner mentioned there was another similar approach being worked on. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/69229 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
