Hi,
On 2024-02-13 12:49:33 -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> > I think I might have been on to something - if my human emulation of a
> > preprocessor isn't wrong, we'd end up with
> >
> > #define S_UNLOCK(lock) \
> > do { _ReadWriteBarrier(); (*(lock)) = 0; } while (0)
> >
> > on msvc + arm. And that's entirely insufficient - _ReadWriteBarrier() just
> > limits *compiler* level reordering, not CPU level reordering. I think it's
> > even insufficient on x86[-64], but it's definitely insufficient on arm.
> >
> In fact ReadWriteBarrier has been deprecated _ReadWriteBarrier | Microsoft
> Learn
> <https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/intrinsics/readwritebarrier?view=msvc-170>
I'd just ignore that, that's just pushing towards more modern stuff that's
more applicable to C++ than C.
> I did try using atomic_thread_fence as per atomic_thread_fence -
> cppreference.com
> <https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/atomic/atomic_thread_fence>
The semantics of atomic_thread_fence are, uh, very odd. I'd just use
MemoryBarrier().
Greetings,
Andres Freund
