Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Memory ordering
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:37:50 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <vhh16e$1lp5h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfono1$14l9r$1@dont-email.me> <vgm4vj$3d2as$1@dont-email.me>
 <vgm5cb$3d2as$3@dont-email.me> <YfxXO.384093$EEm7.56154@fx16.iad>
 <vh4530$2mar5$1@dont-email.me>
 <-rKdnTO4LdoWXKj6nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <vh5t5b$312cl$2@dont-email.me>
 <5yqdnU9eL_Y_GKv6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@supernews.com>
 <2024Nov15.082512@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <vh7ak1$3cm56$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241115152459.00004c86@yahoo.com> <vh8bn7$3j6ql$1@dont-email.me>
 <vhb2dc$73fe$1@dont-email.me> <vhct2q$lk1b$2@dont-email.me>
 <2024Nov17.161752@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 04:37:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9787b18f7626d1c750fb4a6ec8af4b65";
	logging-data="1762481"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19s0OaDtf9oCBjnAnbZihwaCuMjJKQTs9c="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+vz1vFj2xk6VtiouR6y4Tj7XwqE=
In-Reply-To: <2024Nov17.161752@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2496

On 11/17/2024 7:17 AM, Anton Ertl wrote:
> jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com> writes:
>> Even if the hardware memory
>> memory model is strongly ordered, compilers can reorder stuff,
>> so you still have to program as if a weak memory model was in
>> effect.
> 
> That's something between the user of a programming language and the
> compiler.  If you use a programming language or compiler that gives
> weaker memory ordering guarantees than the architecture it compiles
> to, that's your choice.  Nothing forces compilers to behave that way,
> and it's actually easier to write compilers that do not do such
> reordering.
> 
>> Or maybe disable reordering or optimization altogether
>> for those target architectures.
> 
> So you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

No, keep the weak order systems and not throw them out wrt a system that 
is 100% seq_cst? Perhaps? What am I missing here?