search for: memory_order_acq_rel

...finitions that conflict in this particular case, but this problem could reoccur in the future with other symbols as well: enum memory_order { memory_order_relaxed = 1 << 0, memory_order_consume = 1 << 1, memory_order_acquire = 1 << 2, memory_order_release = 1 << 3, memory_order_acq_rel = 1 << 4, memory_order_seq_cst = 1 << 5 }; We currently have a workaround (in the system header) that makes this non-blocking, but it would be good to cleanly address this problem. Removing the "using namespace" from the header seems like the cleanest solution. WDYT? Thank...

Hi, what's the current status of the memory-ordered operations described in https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYWBeVVqyP7dZGRiNG1oeHpfMjJkejVnOThkZA&hl=en.&pli=1 i.e. the ones for "load acquire", "store release" etc. for C++0x atomics, not the older ones for the __sync intrinsics? The specification looks good - is it just waiting to be implemented? Al --

...roblem could reoccur in the future with other symbols as well: >> >> enum memory_order { >> memory_order_relaxed = 1 << 0, >> memory_order_consume = 1 << 1, >> memory_order_acquire = 1 << 2, >> memory_order_release = 1 << 3, >> memory_order_acq_rel = 1 << 4, >> memory_order_seq_cst = 1 << 5 >> }; >> >> >> We currently have a workaround (in the system header) that makes this >> non-blocking, but it would be good to cleanly address this problem. Removing >> the "using namespace"...

...ory_order_relaxed); In this case the compiler is free to order load/stores to x, in different threads, any why it feels fit. The full set of relaxed options are defined by the enumeration: typedef enum memory_order { memory_order_relaxed, memory_order_acquire, memory_order_release, memory_order_acq_rel, memory_order_seq_cst } memory_order; In the case of a default consistency model memory fences are not required but, in general, this is no longer the case for the relaxed model and C++ provides a family of fence operations, one per type of atomic (i.e. bool, address, and integral types); the boo...

Hi Ben, Vacation is always a good thing. Hope you had a good one. In my mind, having a more general memory consistency model is going to be very useful in LLVM in the future. It is still a little unclear to me what we should support. I haven't looked at what C++ is considering for their model. Are they going to support different relaxations models like relaxing write to read or