On Nov 14, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > > First, there are more kinds of atomic loads and stores. Then, the fact that > the calls are not supposed to be reordered must be a guarantee of the > language, not a speculation about an implementation. We can't argue that a > feature works just because it so happens an implementation works a specific > way.
I've always been a fan of release consistency, and it dovetails well with the behavior of mutexes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_consistency). It would be cool if we could sort out transactional memory as well, but that's not a short term thing.
