On Nov 15, 2012, at 3:05 PM, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 November 2012 at 22:57:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> On 11/15/12 1:29 PM, David Nadlinger wrote: >>> On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 17:54:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>>> That is correct. My point is that compiler implementers would follow >>>> some specification. That specification would contain informationt hat >>>> atomicLoad and atomicStore must have special properties that put them >>>> apart from any other functions. >>> >>> What are these special properties? Sorry, it seems like we are talking >>> past each other… >> >> For example you can't hoist a memory operation before a shared load or after >> a shared store. > > Well, to be picky, that depends on what kind of memory operation you mean – > moving non-volatile loads/stores across volatile ones is typically considered > acceptable. Usually not, really. Like if you implement a mutex, you don't want non-volatile operations to be hoisted above the mutex acquire or sunk below the mutex release. However, it's safe to move additional operations into the block where the mutex is held.
