RFR 8151198: VarHandle factory-specific exceptions
dl at cs.oswego.edu
Sat Apr 9 14:05:34 UTC 2016
On 04/09/2016 09:03 AM, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
> Just to confirm - opaque is also a compiler fence right? C++ relaxed doesn't
> require compiler fence, but it sounds like opaque does. Would be good to
> clarify this, unless "program order" is the way you want to do that.
"Program order" normally requires a compiler fence.
Most people don't know what a compiler fence is though, and
it is not especially easy to define. So I don't think this would
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu
> <mailto:dl at cs.oswego.edu>> wrote:
> On 04/08/2016 02:39 PM, Hans Boehm wrote:
> My prior impression was that Opaque was intended to be similar to a C++
> memory_order_relaxed access to a variable that is declared as both atomic
> and volatile, with the unordered interpretation of C++ "volatile".
> Yes. This is awkward to spell out in detail, but surely there is
> some way to say it that is more illuminating than confusing.
> Especially since the implementation on all known processors
> is straightforward -- reading/writing (all bits atomically) in program order.
> Sent from my phone
More information about the core-libs-dev