|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?

Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?

Posted Jul 26, 2019 18:11 UTC (Fri) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562)
In reply to: Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler? by law@redhat.com
Parent article: Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?

I agree. Although I still don't understand why the C11/C++11 memory model chose to provide barriers not tied to variables in such an oddly defined way. IIRC - and it's been a while since I tried to parse the standard's language - you can't really use them to incrementally upgrade from compiler-specific barriers, without also converting all other memory to go through C11/C++11 atomics.


to post comments

Who's afraid of a big bad optimizing compiler?

Posted Aug 15, 2019 19:15 UTC (Thu) by PaulMcKenney (✭ supporter ✭, #9624) [Link]

There were some concerns about specific machines that have since proved groundless, so the atomic_thread_fence() wording has (quite) recently been upgraded.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds