From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-09 09:30:36
Peter Dimov wrote:
> Markus Schöpflin:
>> Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
>>> Markus Schöpflin escribió:
>
>>>> 1) Currently it is not specified whether an atomic operation implies a
>>>> memory barrier or not. This should be explicitly stated.
>>> They should imply a barrier. Since this was an internal header, I
>>> haven't documented anything. Now that people is contributing, at least,
>>> I should add a comment to the header.
>> OK, I need to add memory barriers to the code then.
>
> You need to know what kind of memory synchronization is implied. Acquire for
> atomic load, release for atomic store and acquire+release is a reasonably
> safe bet in situations such as this one where the author isn't quite sure.
> :-)
>
> Last I looked at the various implementations, most of the routines did not
> provide these guarantees, though.
>
> Your use of volatile is also a bit suspect. Volatile operations may be
> atomic without implying an acquire (release) constraint, both for the
> hardware and for the compiler.
>
> On Alpha, you'll probably need to add a memory barrier after the loads, a
> memory barrier before the stores, and one before and one after the
> read/modify/write operations. This would require that the compiler is smart
> enough to recognize the barrier and not move code across.
OK, I finally got around to add memory barriers to the atomic primitives on
Alpha. The corresponding check-in can be found here:
http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/40967
I hope I got the acquire/release things sorted out correctly. Ion, could
you perhaps check if the semantics now match the intended usage?
BTW, I added a copyright note to the top of the file, IIUC I'm required to
do this. If not, feel free to remove it again.
Regards,
Markus