search for: memory_order_acquir

...error: reference to 'memory_order_relaxed' is ambiguous __theAmount, memory_order_relaxed) + __theAmount); ^ .../usr/bin/../include/c++/v1/atomic:548:5: note: candidate found by name lookup is 'std::__1::memory_order::memory_order_relaxed' memory_order_relaxed, memory_order_consume, memory_order_acquire, ^ ../src/projects/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/../sanitizer_common/sanitizer_atomic.h:22:3: note: candidate found by name lookup is '__sanitizer::memory_order::memory_order_relaxed' memory_order_relaxed = 1 << 0, ^ The problem is due to the combination of the following: 1. The runtime in...

...' is ambiguous >> __theAmount, memory_order_relaxed) + __theAmount); >> ^ >> .../usr/bin/../include/c++/v1/atomic:548:5: note: candidate found by name >> lookup is 'std::__1::memory_order::memory_order_relaxed' >> memory_order_relaxed, memory_order_consume, memory_order_acquire, >> ^ >> ../src/projects/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/../sanitizer_common/sanitizer_atomic.h:22:3: >> note: candidate found by name lookup is >> '__sanitizer::memory_order::memory_order_relaxed' >> memory_order_relaxed = 1 << 0, >> ^ >> >> &g...

First off, thanks -- this is a pretty great library and it feels like I'm learning a lot. I'm getting some more experience with libfuzzer and finding that I have a couple of questions: - How does libfuzzer decide to write a new test file? What distinguishes this one from all the other cases for which new test inputs were not written? Must be something about the path taken through the

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 --

...-- -Brian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150811/0323f018/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- #0 atomic_exchange<__sanitizer::atomic_uint32_t> (mo=__sanitizer::memory_order_acquire, v=2, a=0x640000001290) #1 __sanitizer::BlockingMutex::Lock (this=this at entry=0x640000001290) at /home/brian/tmp/testing/llvm_src/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_linux.cc:471 #2 0x0000000000447899 in GenericScopedLock (mu=mu at entry=0x640000001290, this=<synthetic...

...load(memory_order_relaxed); x.store(something, memory_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 atom...

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