Re: [lttng-dev] [PATCH v2 04/12] urcu/system: Use atomic builtins if configured
"Paul E. McKenney via lttng-dev" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.lttng.lists.lttng-dev |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <d0645415-f325-4f89-b9b4-e77cb0c56c94@paulmck-laptop> |
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 03:03:21PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote: > On Wed, 05 Jul 2023, "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 10:43:21AM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, "Paul E. McKenney" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 02:53:51PM -0400, Olivier Dion wrote: > >> > > >> > Same question here on loss of volatile semantics. > >> > >> This apply to all review on volatile semantics. I added a > >> cmm_cast_volatile() macro/template for C/C++ for adding the volatile > >> qualifier to pointers passed to every atomic builtin calls. > > > > Sounds very good, thank you! > > Maybe a case of synchronicity here, but I just stumble upon this > <https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0062r1.html> > where you seem to express the same concerns :-) Just for completeness, my response to Hans's concern about volatile is addressed by an empty memory-clobber asm, similar to barrier() in the Linux kernel. But yes, this has seen significant discussion over the years. ;-) Thanx, Paul _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev