More on memory barriers

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Jason Merrill wrote:
> It also means that my 2003-12-19 change to remove general memory
> clobbers from the atomic operations was misguided; I failed to consider the
> synchronization function of the memory clobber.
>
> Thoughts?

Your new insight is comforting. ;-)
<URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-03/msg01799.html>.
(The ranting paragraph starting with "I also added back the
memory clobber removed last December".)

Wrt. your question later in the thread, no additional sync insns
is needed for CRIS.

I probably miss something, but I don't really see an OO arch as
effectively much different than GCC taking a quantum leap in
scheduler technology and moving a memory access across the
location where a memory barrier is needed (that is, moving it
across a needed but *absent* barrier).

brgds, H-P