Adding atomic primops

[Carter Schonwald]

Hey Johan,
on https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/7883 Ryan helped articulate what
he'd want wrt memory ordering semantics.

One point is that It might be totally valid and reasonable to provide
*both* variants, though if we only were to do one, the strong ordering
guarantees might be a better default, albeit your use case and others does
benefit from using the weakest / simplest primops possible,


On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>wrote:

> I will update the wiki page (and later CmmSink) with the guarantees we
> expect CallishMachOps to provide. We do need to pick what kind of guarantee
> we want to provide. Options are here:
> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order
>
> Do we want to have these CallishMachOps to imply a full memory fence CPU
> instruction or some more relaxed ordering (e.g. only atomicity)?
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20140515/b50223ed/attachment.html>