On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Sebastian Redl < [email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 2014, at 22:59, Richard Smith wrote: > > > OK, so... the standard does imply that the 'expected' access is > non-atomic, which means that the case described in PR18899 already contains > a data race (between the load of 'expected' in the > __atomic_compare_exchange and the hypothesized store in another thread) > > The case I described there doesn't contain a race, because the memory > location in question isn't visible to any other threads until the > compare_exchange succeeds. The load from 'expected' happens-before the > successful write, which synchronizes-with any load from the atomic in > another thread that makes the memory location of 'expected' visible to > another thread. Yes, you're quite right =)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
