Re: [LAD] Code reordering

2016-03-05 Thread Sebastian Gesemann
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Kjetil Matheussen wrote: > On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Kjetil Matheussen > wrote: >> >> Well, atomics are not an official part of the C standard, only the C++ >> standard. > > Ouch. Sorry. Wrong. C11 has

Re: [LAD] Code reordering

2016-03-05 Thread Kjetil Matheussen
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Kjetil Matheussen wrote: > Control of memory ordering and atomics are officially part of the C >> > and C++ languages since 2011. GCC already supported this when the ISO >> standards was finalized. Microsoft and Clang started supporting

Re: [LAD] Code reordering

2016-03-05 Thread Kjetil Matheussen
> > Control of memory ordering and atomics are officially part of the C > and C++ languages since 2011. GCC already supported this when the ISO > standards was finalized. Microsoft and Clang started supporting it in > 2012. So, it's been pretty much portable since 2012. This is 2016. > IMHO, it's

Re: [LAD] Code reordering

2016-03-05 Thread Sebastian Gesemann
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:16:02AM +0100, Sebastian Gesemann wrote: > >> As I said, I consider JACK's ringbuffer implementation to be broken. >> According to the C11/C++11 memory model there is nothing in the code >>