[PATCH] D56534: [Verifier] Add verification of unaligned atomic load/store

[Philip Reames via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

reames added a comment.

In D56534#1360892 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56534#1360892>, @efriedma wrote:

> In general, any lock-based atomic can't overlap with any lock-free atomic operation: the lock-free operation will ignore the lock, so the behavior is unpredictable.  That isn't unique to 16-byte operations.  That's not really fatal for the intended use of the __atomic functions: atomic variables in C/C++ can't overlap.  Yes, it's not consistent with the way the LLVM documentation describes atomic operations.


Can you cite this please?  While technical consistent with everything else on this thread, this seems to differ in spirit.  Before enshrining this in the documentation, I'd like to double check.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D56534/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D56534