> of course the compiler vendors have to worry about portability. Yes, but the point was that "defining a language that doesn't suck" is a competing requiremen

> of course the compiler vendors have to worry about portability. Yes, but the point was that "defining a language that doesn't suck" is a competing requirement. Again, C++ just dropped the ball here and solved the wrong problem. And we all suffer for it with repeated blog posts like this one trying desperately to explain exactly what "acquire" means and not how hardware actually works. And yes: Linux has clean and easy (or as easy as these things get) read/write barriers, the implementation of which has now been terribly polluted by the toolchain's incompatible choice of semantics.