On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 12:29 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 04/16/12 11:15, Torvald Riegel wrote:
- for acq/rel memorders, we don't need seq_cst fences whenever the
atomicity is implemented with a lock
(hostconfig.c:pre_barrier/post_barrier)
Err.. where? This also seems to
On 04/16/12 11:15, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Richard, Andrew,
I had a look at libatomic yesterday, focusing primarily on
synchronization issues in it. Here are some comments. And I think
there is a bug in it too. Notes are in no particular order. Let me know
what you think.
- seq_cst
On 04/23/2012 03:29 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
- load_n.c:
- I'm concerned about the CAS on read-only mprotected pages?
Why again do we think this is safe? Does the standard explicitly
allow this? Or should we just use a lock in this case?
Andrew, you had a bit of
On 4/23/12, Andrew MacLeod amacl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/23/2012 03:29 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
- load_n.c:
- I'm concerned about the CAS on read-only mprotected pages?
Why again do we think this is safe? Does the standard
explicitly allow this? Or should we just
