Re: C++0x Memory model and gcc

[Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>]

Albert Cohen <Albert.Cohen@inria.fr> writes:

> Jean-Marc Bourguet wrote:
>>>     -fmemory-model=single
>>>         Assume single threaded execution, which also means no signal
>>>         handlers.
>>>     -fmemory-model=fast
>>>         The user is responsible for all synchronization.  Accessing
>>>         the same memory words from different threads may break
>>>         unpredictably.
>>>     -fmemory-model=safe
>>>         The compiler will do its best to protect you.
>>
>> With that description, I'd think that "safe" lets the user code assumes
>> the sequential consistency model.  I'd use -fmemory-model=conformant or
>> something like that for the model where the compiler assumes that the user
>> code respect the constraint led out for it by the standard.  As which
>> constraints are put on user code depend on the languages -- Java has its
>> own memory model which AFAIK is more constraining than C++ and I think Ada
>> has its own but my Ada programming days are too far for me to comment on
>> it -- one may prefer some other name.
>
> I agree. Or even, =c++0x or =gnu++0x
>
> On the other hand, I fail to see the differen between =single and
> =fast, and the explanation about "the same memory word" is not really
> relevant as memory models typically tell you about concurrent accesses
> to "different memory words".

What I was thinking is that the difference between =single and =fast
is that =single permits store speculation.  The difference between
=fast and =safe/=conformant is that =fast permits writing to a byte by
loading a word, changing the byte, and storing the word; in
particular, =fast permits write combining in cases where =safe does
not.

Memory models may not talk about memory words, but they exist
nevertheless.

Ian