Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "2371a2e5".
2013 Jun 13
0
[LLVMdev] A question w.r.t fence instruction vs. noalias pointer
In a multi-threaded environment, in order to ensure the memory ordering expressed by the memory fence, certain memory operations should not be moved across the fence, right?
From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Guo, Xiaoyi
Cc: LLVM Dev
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] A question w.r.t fence instruction vs. noalias pointer
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at
2013 Jun 13
1
[LLVMdev] A question w.r.t fence instruction vs. noalias pointer
...ointed-to memory has to be based on the noalias pointer. This applies to
all threads in the program, not just the one the function is called from.
-Eli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130613/2371a2e5/attachment.html>
2013 Jun 13
2
[LLVMdev] A question w.r.t fence instruction vs. noalias pointer
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Guo, Xiaoyi <Xiaoyi.Guo at amd.com> wrote:
> I mean something like a target-specific fence machine instruction which
> forces ordering of all loads/stores. I want to clarify the meaning of
> “noalias” in this case. Is the fence machine instruction considered
> “touching” all memory and thus breaks the “noalias” contract?
>
A fence