[LLVMdev] Proposal for a new LLVM concurrency memory model

Renato Golin rengolin at systemcall.org
Mon Apr 26 03:14:00 PDT 2010

On 26 April 2010 10:49, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:
> Certainly for languages such as Java, they will make up a surprisingly large
> chunk of the loads and stores, and instructions have much mor flexibility in
> terms of syntax. On the flip side, it's a lot of plumbing IIRC, and we'd
> really need to stick to the very minimal set of operations, supporting more
> obscure ones by pattern matching or intrinsics.

If you add it to the instructions, their syntax will be more complex
than they are today, and reading them could prove a challenge.

IMHO, we should keep it simple. I agree that multi-task is ubiquitous
nowadays but the detailed implementation might vary considerably from
language to language and making it explicit only helps, at least in
the beginning.



Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list