[LLVMdev] Proposal for a new LLVM concurrency memory model

[Renato Golin]

On 26 April 2010 15:59, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote:
> To be clear, Chandler wasn't suggesting any change to the existing
> load and store instructions. Instead, we were wondering if people like
> the idea of _new_ atomic_load, atomic_store, atomic_cmpxchg, and maybe
> atomic_exchange and atomic_add instructions.

I see, in that case, I don't have any strong opinion. Maybe new
instructions would be simpler and cleaner...

I quite like the idea of having more expressive atomic operators, as
it'll be easier to map high-level synchronization concepts to IR.

cheers,
--renato

http://systemcall.org/

Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm