On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote:
> There are a couple of instances in which the paper doesn't cover the > handling of memory_model_consume, and I made a best guess. These > are indicated by /* ??? */ markers. I would be obliged if someone > could verify what's supposed to happen in these cases. I attempted > to handle them conservatively. Recording for mailing list posterity what I mentioned on IRC: I have been informed that Load(memory_model_consume) *does not* require isync post-barrier. However an update from the committee requires that Fence(memory_model_consume) *does* require an lwsync pre-barrier. Thanks, David
