On 10/09/2018 17:44, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:32:15 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 03/09/2018 19:18, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>>> Using atomics here is a mistake since they're not guaranteed
>>> to compile.
>>
>> But isn't it technically a C11 data race if you don't use at
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:32:15 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 19:18, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > Using atomics here is a mistake since they're not guaranteed
> > to compile.
>
> But isn't it technically a C11 data race if you don't use atomics?
Yes, it's undefined behaviour.
> Could
On 03/09/2018 19:18, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> Using atomics here is a mistake since they're not guaranteed
> to compile.
But isn't it technically a C11 data race if you don't use atomics?
Could we make nocheck read/set degrade to just a volatile access when
used on a variable that is bigger than po
