On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 12:29 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/16/12 11:15, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > - for acq/rel memorders, we don't need seq_cst fences whenever the
> > atomicity is implemented with a lock
> > (hostconfig.c:pre_barrier/post_barrier)
>
> Err.. where? This also seems t
On 4/23/12, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 03:29 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > - load_n.c:
> > >- I'm concerned about the CAS on read-only mprotected pages?
> > > Why again do we think this is safe? Does the standard
> > > explicitly allow this? Or should we just use a
On 04/23/2012 03:29 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
- load_n.c:
- I'm concerned about the CAS on read-only mprotected pages?
Why again do we think this is safe? Does the standard explicitly
allow this? Or should we just use a lock in this case?
Andrew, you had a bit of back-and-fort
On 04/16/12 11:15, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Richard, Andrew,
>
> I had a look at libatomic yesterday, focusing primarily on
> synchronization issues in it. Here are some comments. And I think
> there is a bug in it too. Notes are in no particular order. Let me know
> what you think.
>
> - seq_c
