On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:46:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > Actually, if you show a case where this makes a visible system-wide > difference, you could create a set of primitives for #1 below. Have > a compiler version check, and if it is an old compiler, map them to > READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(), otherwise as follows, though preferably > with better names: > > #define READ_NOTEAR(x) __atomic_load_n(&(x), __ATOMIC_RELAXED) > #define WRITE_NOTEAR(x, v) __atomic_store_n(&(x), (v), __ATOMIC_RELAXED) > > The ambiguity between "no tear" and "not ear" should help motivate a > better choice of name.
Alternatively, could we try and talk to our GCC friends to make sure GCC doesn't tear loads/stores irrespective of what the C language spec allows?
