Subj : Re: Memory visibility and MS Interlocked instructions To : comp.programming.threads From : David Hopwood Date : Wed Aug 31 2005 01:41 am Joe Seigh wrote: > We're talking about whether PC implies loads (not stores) are in order or not. I don't even know what "loads are in order" would mean. What Alexander was claiming was that on x86 load implies load.acq. This *is* consistent with what the P4 manual says, insofar as the manual makes sense. -- David Hopwood .