[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Torvald Riegel <> wrote:
> I wouldn't characterize the situation like this (although I can't speak
> for others, obviously). IMHO, it's perfectly fine on sequential /
> non-synchronizing code, because we know the difference isn't observable
> by a correct program.

What BS is that? If you use an "atomic_store_explicit()", by
definition you're either

(a) f*cking insane
(b) not doing sequential non-synchronizing code

and a compiler that assumes that the programmer is insane may actually
be correct more often than not, but it's still a shit compiler.

So I don't see how any sane person can say that speculative writes are
ok. They are clearly not ok.

Speculative stores are a bad idea in general. They are completely
invalid for anything that says "atomic". This is not even worth


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-10 02:21    [W:0.289 / U:0.120 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site