kmclaughlin-arm wrote: >> HINT_STCPH: Ensures that the memory write effect of the next instruction >> occurs before any other effects from other threads.
> Could you just confirm this is a performance hint? Should we interpret this > that sequencing the next instruction before other memory accesses from other > threads yields a performance benefit? And that programs cannot depend on the > ordering for correctness. mem.cache_hint needs to be safe to drop. Yes, `HINT_STCPH` is just a hint which indicates that sequencing the next instruction before other memory effects from other threads has a performance benefit. But as with the other atomic hints, this is safe to drop as the compiler is not required to emit the specific hint instruction or a specific instruction sequence. > Do you mind if I rename everything at once in a follow-up PR after #204067 > goes in? I'd prefer discussion on the naming not block it. No problem, I don't want to hold up the PR you already have in progress. > Do you mind reviewing my PR? I'm trying to push it along and your > encouragement would be valuable I will take a look, thanks for adding me as a reviewer! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/198316 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
