[llvm] r215943 - Answer to Philip Reames comments
Philip Reames
listmail at philipreames.com
Mon Aug 18 15:42:49 PDT 2014
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).
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list