On 11/14/2011 11:46 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 1:46 AM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> There are a couple of instances in which the paper doesn't cover the >> handling of memory_model_consume, and I made a best guess. These >> are indicated by /* ??? */ markers. I would be obliged if someone >> could verify what's supposed to happen in these cases. I attempted >> to handle them conservatively. > > Recording for mailing list posterity what I mentioned on IRC: > > I have been informed that Load(memory_model_consume) *does not* > require isync post-barrier. > > However an update from the committee requires that > Fence(memory_model_consume) *does* require an lwsync pre-barrier.
I've committed the patch with trivial adjustments for the above. r~
