Explicit Atomics in Syncvar Implementation #235
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… and stores with explicit atomic loads and stores.
insertinterestingnamehere
changed the base branch from
main
to
release-1.20-pre
This was referenced Feb 13, 2024
insertinterestingnamehere
merged commit 1f86571
into
sandialabs:release-1.20-pre
176 of 297 checks passed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This one's more straightforward than the debate around
aligned_tbecause syncvars were already treated as atomics internally. This was just a matter of making the loads and stores explicit.I also made ARM take the same branch as x86 for these blocks of code since we're currently assuming lock-free atomics there too.