[PATCH] D58490: Be super conservative about atomics in various backends

[Matt Arsenault via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

arsenm added a comment.

Should all of these use hasOrderedMemoryRef instead?



================
Comment at: lib/Target/ARM/ARMLoadStoreOptimizer.cpp:1583-1584
   // Don't touch volatile memory accesses - we may be changing their order.
-  if (MMO.isVolatile())
+  // TODO: Unclear whether we need to be as defense about atomic operations.
+  if (MMO.isVolatile() || MMO.isAtomic())
     return false;
----------------
Is this really any different than hasOrderedMemoryRef?


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D58490/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D58490