This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 0/3] Conversion to __atomic builtins

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:44:56 -1000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Conversion to __atomic builtins
References: <1321080394-16180-1-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> <CAGWvnynVtB-w8su143W2qwx-8ok2BHn2jfakpTg7n6sp7-4nZg@mail.gmail.com>

On 11/14/2011 11:46 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> There are a couple of instances in which the paper doesn't cover the
>> handling of memory_model_consume, and I made a best guess.  These
>> are indicated by /* ??? */ markers.  I would be obliged if someone
>> could verify what's supposed to happen in these cases.  I attempted
>> to handle them conservatively.
> 
> Recording for mailing list posterity what I mentioned on IRC:
> 
> I have been informed that Load(memory_model_consume) *does not*
> require isync post-barrier.
> 
> However an update from the committee requires that
> Fence(memory_model_consume) *does* require an lwsync pre-barrier.

I've committed the patch with trivial adjustments for the above.


r~

References:
- [PATCH 0/3] Conversion to __atomic builtins
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [PATCH 0/3] Conversion to __atomic builtins
  - From: David Edelsohn

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]