30f
Subj : Re: Memory visibility and MS Interlocked instructions
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Joe Seigh
Date : Tue Aug 30 2005 10:07 pm

David Hopwood wrote:
> 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.
> 

Memory barriers order access w.r.t. memory.  "loads in order" means
#LoadLoad between loads.  I'm not sure what you think "out-of-order"
means then.

-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

.

0