[PATCH] D21723: [RFC] Enhance synchscope representation

[Tony Tye via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

t-tye added inline comments.


================
Comment at: docs/LangRef.rst:2192
+``<target-scope>`` is a target specific synchronization scope, then it is target
+dependent if it definitely does, definitely does not, or maybe
+*synchronizes with*, and participates in the seq\_cst total orderings of, other
----------------
sanjoy wrote:
> This middle paragraph was not clear to me.  Are you trying to say that given two atomic operations `op0` marked with `syncscope("scope-0")` and `op1` marked with `syncscope("scope-1")`, whether they synchronize or not is a target  specific function of `"scope-0"` and `"scope-1"`?  If so, why not say just that?
> 
It is actually also target dependent even if `scope-0` is the same as `scope-1`. The intend of the text was to convey that it may be possible to determine if two atomic operations definitely do synchronize, definitely do not, or may synchronize as suggested by @mehdi_amini in an earlier comment.

However, would the following be better?

```
If an atomic operation is marked ``syncscope("<target-scope>")``, where
``<target-scope>`` is a target specific synchronization scope, then it is target
dependent if it *synchronizes with*, and participates in the seq\_cst total orderings of, other atomic operations.
```



https://reviews.llvm.org/D21723