[PATCH] D59345: Allow code motion (and thus folding) for atomic (but unordered) memory operands

[JF Bastien via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jfb accepted this revision.
jfb added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.

Overall this looks good.
Do you have tests with intervening fences (both atomic and thread), to make sure they block motion as expected?

I'm trying to figure out if this optimization is only correct for `memory_order_java`, or if it also applies to `memory_order_relaxed`. I can't see a case in your examples which wouldn't apply to `memory_order_relaxed` as well. @__simt__ WDYT?
I'm not asking you to do that work. It just seems like a valid follow-up.


Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D59345/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D59345