On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:12:44PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:06:35PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Do you really imply ACQUIRE/RELEASE with HLE_ACQUIRE/RELEASE now? I don't > > see that in the code. I think that's really required, otherwise the > > optimizer > > will do the wrong thing and move memory references outside the region. > > IMHO the separate bits for HLE_ACQUIRE/RELEASE are desirable, you could very > well use __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL or __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST if you want stronger memory
That would still work, right? If you have multiple the stronger wins. > barrier, still coupled with either __ATOMIC_HLE_ACQUIRE or > __ATOMIC_HLE_RELEASE... If the compiler barrier is not implied I can just see lots of buggy code that subtly breaks with higher optimizer levels, compiler updates etc. Of course it will be all gccs fault. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
