Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 21 Oct 2023 15:36:21 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH memory-model] docs: memory-barriers: Add note on compiler transformation and address deps | From | Jonas Oberhauser <> |
| |
Am 10/20/2023 um 8:13 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 06:00:19PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote: >> Am 10/20/2023 um 3:57 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney: >>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:29:24AM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote: >>>> Am 10/19/2023 um 6:39 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney: >>>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:11:58PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote: >>>>>> Hi Paul, >>>>>> [...] >>>>> The compiler is forbidden from inventing pointer comparisons. >>>> TIL :) Btw, do you remember a discussion where this is clarified? A quick >>>> search didn't turn up anything. >>> This was a verbal discussion with Richard Smith at the 2020 C++ Standards >>> Committee meeting in Prague. I honestly do not know what standardese >>> supports this. >> Richard Smith >> Then this e-mail thread shall be my evidence for future discussion. > I am sure that Richard will be delighted, especially given that he > did not seem at all happy with this don't-invent-pointer-comparisons > rule. ;-)
Neither am I :D He can voice his delightenment or lack thereof to me if we ever happen to meet in person.
>> I think this tiny rewrite makes it much more clear. Specifically it tells *why* the text is historical (and why we maybe don't need to read it anymore). > Good point! I reworked this a bit and added it to both HISTORICAL > sections, with your Suggested-by.
The new version looks good to me!
>>>>> The longer-term direction, perhaps a few years from now, is for the >>>>> first section to simply reference rcu_dereference.rst and for the second >>>>> section to be removed completely. >>>> Sounds good to me, but that doesn't mean we need to compromise the >>>> readability in the interim :) >>> Some compromise is needed for people that read the document some time >>> back and are looking for something specific. >> Yes. But the compromise should be "there's a blob of text other people don't >> need to read", not "there's a blob of text that will leave other people >> confused". > Fair enough in general, but I cannot promise to never confuse people. > This is after all memory ordering. And different people will be confused > by different things.
You can say that twice. In fact I suspect this is not the first time you say that :))
jonas
| |