On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:01:17PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:57:37PM +0100, Andrea Parri wrote:
> > Remove this subtle (and, AFAICT, unused) ordering: we can add it back,
> > if necessary, but let us not encourage people to rely on this thing.
> >
> > For example, the following "exists" clause can be satisfied with this
> > change:
> >
> > C dep-rfi
> >
> > { }
> >
> > P0(int *x, int *y)
> > {
> > WRITE_ONCE(*x, 1);
> > smp_store_release(y, 1);
> > }
> >
> > P1(int *x, int *y, int *z)
> > {
> > int r0;
> > int r1;
> > int r2;
> >
> > r0 = READ_ONCE(*y);
> > WRITE_ONCE(*z, r0);
> > r1 = smp_load_acquire(z);
> > r2 = READ_ONCE(*x);
> > }
> >
> > exists (1:r0=1 /\ 1:r2=0)
>
> Any objections? If I don't hear any in a couple days, I will apply this.
IIUC you cannot build hardware that allows the above, so why would we
allow it?
