[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150520181647.GU6776@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:16:47 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: c++std-parallel@...u.org
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>,
p796231 <Peter.Sewell@...cam.ac.uk>,
"mark.batty@...cam.ac.uk" <Mark.Batty@...cam.ac.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"michaelw@...ibm.com" <michaelw@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [c++std-parallel-1632] Re: Compilers and RCU readers: Once more
unto the breach!
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 04:54:51PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/20/2015 04:46 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'm not sure... you'd require the compiler to perform static analysis of
> > loops to determine the state of the machine when they exit (if they exit!)
> > in order to show whether or not a dependency is carried to subsequent
> > operations. If it can't prove otherwise, it would have to assume that a
> > dependency *is* carried, and it's not clear to me how it would use this
> > information to restrict any subsequent dependency removing optimisations.
>
> It'd just convert consume to acquire.
It should not need to, actually.
Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists