Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "blaehp".
Did you mean:
blaeh
2016 Feb 29
0
[isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition
...plain dependency chains, would
be much easier if the 'carries-dependency' would be encoded into the types
of operands. For purpose of example, let's call the marker "blaeh" (not
atomic to not confuse with existing use :) ):
int foo;
blaeh int global;
int *somep;
blae int *blaehp;
f () {
blaehp = &foo; // might be okay, adds restrictions on accesses through
// blaehp, but not through 'foo' directly
blaehp = &global;
if (somep == blaehp)
{
/* Even though the value is equal ... */
... *blaehp ... /* ... a compiler can&...
2016 Feb 27
4
[isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 04:46:50PM -0800, Hans Boehm wrote:
> If carries_dependency affects semantics, then it should not be an attribute.
I am not picky about the form of the marking.
> The original design, or at least my understanding of it, was that it not
> have semantics; it was only a suggestion to the compiler that it should
> preserve dependencies instead of inserting a fence