[llvm] r215943 - Answer to Philip Reames comments

[Philip Reames]

Just to note: I wasn't actually trying to point out an issue with the 
"unordered" ordering.   My example was intended to be an un-"ordered" 
load.  (i.e. one which was not "atomic")  I just got a bit sloppy with 
my wording.

Your "isSimple" change is probably the safe place to start though. :)

On 08/18/2014 03:18 PM, Robin Morisset wrote:
> - strengthen condition from isUnordered() to isSimple(), as I don't understand well enough Unordered semantics (and it also matches the comment better this way) to be confident in the previous behaviour (thanks for catching that one, I had missed the case Monotonic/Unordered).