Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "msg45939".
Did you mean:
msg45935
2010 Jan 05
1
[LLVMdev] Non-temporal moves in memset [Was: ASM output with JIT / codegen barriers]
...bc-alpha/2007-11/msg00017.html
Redhat errata including that fix in a stable update:
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2008-0083.html
Then there's a recent discussion on the topic of who is responsible
for calling sfence on the gcc mailing list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/gcc at gcc.gnu.org/msg45939.html
Unfortunately, that thread didn't seem to have any firm conclusion,
but ISTM that the current default assumption is (b): anything that
uses movnti is assumed to surround such uses with memory fences so
that other code doesn't need to.
James
2010 Jan 05
0
[LLVMdev] ASM output with JIT / codegen barriers
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote:
>>> Hi, thanks everyone for all the comments. I think maybe I wasn't clear that
>>> I *only* care about
2010 Jan 05
3
[LLVMdev] ASM output with JIT / codegen barriers
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote:
>> Hi, thanks everyone for all the comments. I think maybe I wasn't clear that
>> I *only* care about atomicity w.r.t. a signal handler interruption in the
>> same thread, *not* across threads. Therefore,