On 11/15/12 2:18 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 16:43:14 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Nov 15, 2012, at 5:16 AM, deadalnix <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the point of ensuring that the compiler does not reorder
load/stores if the CPU is allowed to do so ?
Because we can write ASM to tell the CPU not to. We don't have any
such ability for the compiler right now.
I think the question was: Why would you want to disable compiler code
motion for loads/stores which are not atomic, as the CPU might ruin your
assumptions anyway?
The compiler does whatever it takes to ensure sequential consistency for
shared use, including possibly inserting fences in certain places.
Andrei
