On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't characterize the situation like this (although I can't speak
> for others, obviously). IMHO, it's perfectly fine on sequential /
> non-synchronizing code, because we know the difference isn't observable
> by a correct program.
What BS is that? If you use an "atomic_store_explicit()", by
definition you're either
(a) f*cking insane
(b) not doing sequential non-synchronizing code
and a compiler that assumes that the programmer is insane may actually
be correct more often than not, but it's still a shit compiler.
Agreed?
So I don't see how any sane person can say that speculative writes are
ok. They are clearly not ok.
Speculative stores are a bad idea in general. They are completely
invalid for anything that says "atomic". This is not even worth
discussing.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
