search for: n2857

...ence? If the compiler's free to move operations over the hardware fence, that seems to defeat the purpose. C++0X provides a compiler-only fence, and a hardware+compiler fence, but no hardware-only fence, I believe for this reason. See <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2857.pdf>, section 29.8. On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Surprisingly enough, libatomic_ops doesn't define just a hardware memory > fence call as far as I can tell. > --Owen > On May 16, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > &g...

Surprisingly enough, libatomic_ops doesn't define just a hardware memory fence call as far as I can tell. --Owen On May 16, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > Hi, > > You might want to use this: > > http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/ > > Zoltan > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at

...emory") for the compiler fence. It gets pretty architecture dependent though. Luke > > C++0X provides a compiler-only fence, and a hardware+compiler fence, > but no hardware-only fence, I believe for this reason. See > <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2857.pdf>, > section 29.8. > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: >> Surprisingly enough, libatomic_ops doesn't define just a hardware memory >> fence call as far as I can tell. >> --Owen >> On May 16, 2009, at 3:00...