Well, apparently MIcrosoft doesn't actually fully support C11/C17 yet. Not
entirely sure why they are bothering at all since by the time they get
around to it, the world and everyone else will have moved way beyond that.
I'm tempted to make a list of "Things That Will Happen Before Microsoft
On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 1:39 PM Joseph Seigh wrote:
>
> rseq? The concept seems vaguely familiar. :)
Yes, I meant mostly that it can now be played with easily and used in
production.
> Might not get past POC w/ smrproxy. The idea was to write portable code
> using c11/c17 atomics but I
rseq? The concept seems vaguely familiar. :)
Might not get past POC w/ smrproxy. The idea was to write portable code
using c11/c17 atomics but I don't thing that's possible given how borked
its memory model semantics are. And I mean even more borked than their
discussions of what they
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 9:07 PM Joseph Seigh wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks. I'll examine it in a bit more detail, though at first glance it
> looks like they're using ipi to speed things up by not having to wait for
> slower occurring kernel events.
Yes, my understanding that it always sends IPIs
Ok, thanks. I'll examine it in a bit more detail, though at first glance
it looks like they're using ipi to speed things up by not having to wait
for slower occurring kernel events.
I'm doing some work on a hazard pointer based proxy collector w/ memory
barriers that I suggested ages ago.
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:00 AM Joseph Seigh wrote:
>
> Anyone know the difference between MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED and
> MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE for membarrier.
>
> It would be nice if it actually does what I think it does. I really don't
> want to have to read from
Anyone know the difference between MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED
and MEMBARRIER_CMD_PRIVATE_EXPEDITED_SYNC_CORE for membarrier.
It would be nice if it actually does what I think it does. I really don't
want to have to read from procfs and do a lot of parsing and such.
Joe Seigh
--
---
