peilin-ye wrote: Hi @eddyz87, thanks for the review and context!
> ``` > lock *(u64 *)(r1 + 0x0) = r2 release > lock r2 = *(u64 *)(r1 + 0x0) acquire > ``` Appending `acquire` and `release` does sound nice to me since it makes the syntax more similar to LLVM IR (e.g. `store atomic i64 %v, ptr %p release, align 8`), and it'd also be a bit easier when we support other memory ordering types in the future e.g. we can just append `seq_cst` instead of having to say `load_seq_cst(...)`. However, I didn't want to use `lock` because I feel like it's too similar to the x86 `LOCK` prefix (implies a full memory barrier, which could be confusing here). WDYT? Cc: @yonghong-song @4ast > Also a question regarding 3 commits in one pull request. As far as I > understand [current](https://llvm.org/docs/GitHub.html) policy, the idea is > to have a separate pull request for each commit (and fork branches from one > another to build a stack). Otherwise the commits are squashed. What's the > idea with current pull request? Got it, I'll split this into separate PRs later. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/108636 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
