https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
--- Comment #5 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
So, please pinpoint specific parahraph(s) in the standard that specify that
this behavior is acceptable.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
--- Comment #7 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
#include stdatomic.h
atomic_int a = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(0);
atomic_int b = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(0);
atomic_int p = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(0);
int thread_1(void)
{
atomic_store_explicit(b,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com ---
I'm not sure where the problem is. We interacted quite a bit as the model was
being developed. As I recall, it started with the standard, but they
strengthened some of the problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com ---
The standard doesn't define what machines should generate what code. It defines
terms for observing effects that need to be adhered to. Their machine model was
created over a few
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvald at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amacleod at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
--- Comment #3 from mikulas at artax dot karlin.mff.cuni.cz ---
The problem here is that we don't really know what does the standard specify.
People often suggest the Batty's paper Mathematizing C++ Concurrency (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59767
James Almer jamrial at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamrial at gmail
