"H.J. Lu" <hjl.to...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Andi Kleen <a...@linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hmm, can't the insns themselves properly clobber/use memory? >> >> The transactions don't really use the memory. They just guard it, >> like a lock. >> >> So the intrinsic doesn't know what memory is used inside the transaction, >> but the accesses still cannot be moved out. >> >> I think a barrier is the only sensible option. >> >>> I suppose they are UNSPEC_VOLATILE anyway, right? >> >> That doesn't have any barrier semantics by itself, does it? >> > > Do you have a testcase to show it makes a difference?
It fixed customer code. I currently don't have a separate test case. -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
