 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/14/2011 13:54, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I'm guessing that's for performance, not correctness.
On third google:
http://bartoszmilewski.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/who-ordered-memory-fences-on-an-x86/
That pretty much summarizes it, I guess.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/09/2011 03:03 AM, Darren New wrote:
> It appears at first google that you are correct.
I usually am. And yet people still seem surprised...
> You will always fetch the
> most recent pointer I have stored, but executing "store data ; store
> pointer" might store the pointer before the data without a fence.
It took me a few minutes contemplation to figure out why cache coherence
doesn't solve that problem.
[OK, I can't keep a straight face any more. Of *course* I'm not always
right! LOLZ. Sometimes I feel like I'm right a lot more often than I get
credit for though...]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/09/2011 03:06 AM, Darren New wrote:
> On third google:
>
> http://bartoszmilewski.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/who-ordered-memory-fences-on-an-x86/
>
> That pretty much summarizes it, I guess.
...and /this/ is why high-level concurrent programming frameworks are a
huge, huge win for writing reliable code. o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9/16/2011 1:40, Invisible wrote:
> ...and /this/ is why high-level concurrent programming frameworks are a
> huge, huge win for writing reliable code. o_O
Well, of course. Libraries of working code are always better than
hand-rolled stuff.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
