4 ms·
I see the reference to the "1998 ACM Subject Classification", but this paper is part of a May 2015 conference: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~todd/research/pub.php?id=
by tfoil2 11y ago
I see the reference to the "1998 ACM Subject Classification", but this paper is part of a May 2015 conference: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~todd/research/pub.php?id=snapl15 http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~todd/research/pub.php?id=snapl15
- avandeursen 11y agoYes, it is from the "Summit oN Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL)", May 3-6, 2015. http://snapl.org/2015/ http://snapl.org/2015/
- acqq 11y agoThen ignoring the existence of the weaker memory model of ARM (versus the stronger x86/x64) is even stranger. And even if x86/x64 models are stronger, they still need some fences and using them all the time would be too slow. So I still don't really understand the arguments of the article.
- madanMus 11y agoThe article does not ignore architectures like ARM. You do need fences, but not all the time - the compiler can avoid fences in places where there is no danger of violating sequential consistency (e.g. on accesses to provably local objects).