[PATCH] D58490: Be super conservative about atomics in various backends
Philip Reames via Phabricator via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 21 09:41:48 PST 2019
reames marked an inline comment as done.
reames added inline comments.
================
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;
----------------
arsenm wrote:
> Is this really any different than hasOrderedMemoryRef?
They're not obviously equivalent. I have no idea if they'd achieve the same effect here. If someone more knowledgeable of the code wants to make a deeper change, feel free.
Repository:
rL LLVM
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58490/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D58490
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list