[LLVMdev] Proposal for a new LLVM concurrency memory model

[David Greene]

On Tuesday 27 April 2010 15:25:17 Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:

> I think we're diverging from the memory model now... David, I think

Yep, thanks for pulling us back.  :)

> you're happy with the current proposal to define atomics as
> non-tearing even for vector operands (acknowledging that the backend
> may fail to codegen operands that are too big)? Did I miss any other
> suggestions you made?

We want float atomics, both scalar and vector.  I'm still reviewing the
proposal and will have more comments in a couple days.

                         -Dave