[LLVMdev] Proposal for a new LLVM concurrency memory model

David Greene dag at cray.com
Mon Apr 26 11:46:31 PDT 2010

On Monday 26 April 2010 10:19:06 Renato Golin wrote:
> On 26 April 2010 15:59, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote:
> > To be clear, Chandler wasn't suggesting any change to the existing
> > load and store instructions. Instead, we were wondering if people like
> > the idea of _new_ atomic_load, atomic_store, atomic_cmpxchg, and maybe
> > atomic_exchange and atomic_add instructions.
> I see, in that case, I don't have any strong opinion. Maybe new
> instructions would be simpler and cleaner...
> I quite like the idea of having more expressive atomic operators, as
> it'll be easier to map high-level synchronization concepts to IR.

I don't have a strong preference, but I am curious why all the atomics
are integer-only.  I would like to see 32- and 64-bit float supported as
well, at minimum.


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list