Hey Johan, on https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7883 Ryan helped articulate what he'd want wrt memory ordering semantics.
One point is that It might be totally valid and reasonable to provide *both* variants, though if we only were to do one, the strong ordering guarantees might be a better default, albeit your use case and others does benefit from using the weakest / simplest primops possible, On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Johan Tibell <[email protected]>wrote: > I will update the wiki page (and later CmmSink) with the guarantees we > expect CallishMachOps to provide. We do need to pick what kind of guarantee > we want to provide. Options are here: > http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order > > Do we want to have these CallishMachOps to imply a full memory fence CPU > instruction or some more relaxed ordering (e.g. only atomicity)? > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs > >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
