Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "cc6e567d".
2013 Nov 19
0
[LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)
What I'm trying to say is that according to my understanding of the C++11 memory model, even in that small reproducer, the store to g and the load from g are in fact a data race.
(This is regardless of the fact the load is protected by a branch that is not taken.)
From: Kostya Serebryany [mailto:kcc at google.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 19:46
To: Kuperstein, Michael M
Cc: Evgeniy
2013 Nov 19
4
[LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)
...or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131119/cc6e567d/attachment.html>
2013 Nov 19
5
[LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform changes under Sanitizers (Was: [PATCH] Disable branch folding with MemorySanitizer)
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Kuperstein, Michael M <
michael.m.kuperstein at intel.com> wrote:
> My $0.02 - I'm not sure the transformation introduces a data race.
>
> To the best of my understanding, the point of the C++11/C11 memory model
> is to allow a wide array of compiler transformations - including
> speculative loads - for non-atomic variables.
> I believe