After some discussion with Simon, I will go ahead and try to implement fully sequentially consistent versions of these primops. We can add other versions that take the consistency model as an argument later, if needed.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 9:03 PM, Carter Schonwald < [email protected]> wrote: > 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
