On 10/09/2018 17:44, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:32:15 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 19:18, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>>> Using atomics here is a mistake since they're not guaranteed
>>> to compile.
>>
>> But isn't it technically a C11 data race if you don't use at
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:32:15 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 19:18, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > Using atomics here is a mistake since they're not guaranteed
> > to compile.
>
> But isn't it technically a C11 data race if you don't use atomics?
Yes, it's undefined behaviour.
> Could
On 03/09/2018 19:18, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> Using atomics here is a mistake since they're not guaranteed
> to compile.
But isn't it technically a C11 data race if you don't use atomics?
Could we make nocheck read/set degrade to just a volatile access when
used on a variable that is bigger than po
Using atomics here is a mistake since they're not guaranteed
to compile.
Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota
---
util/qsp.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/util/qsp.c b/util/qsp.c
index b0c2575d10..a1ee03b84b 100644
--- a/util/qsp.c
+++ b/util/qsp.
