Re: [boost] [spinlock] Spin on volatile read, NUMA fairness?

Subject: Re: [boost] [spinlock] Spin on volatile read, NUMA fairness?
From: Stephan T. Lavavej (stl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-03 18:52:59

[Niall Douglas]
> I think the Intel paper was referring to MSVC only, which is an 
> unusual compiler in that its atomics all turn into InterlockedXXX 
> functions irrespective of what you ask for. In other words, all 
> seq_cst.

Absolutely untrue for VC-ARM. Also untrue for VC 2015 x86/x64, where <atomic> avoids Interlocked machinery when an ordinary load/store with a compiler barrier will suffice due to the strength of the architecture's guarantees. (The versions are blurring together, so I forget when we made this change.)

STL