News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Silently Shifting Semicolon [pdf]. Parent comment

Re:The Silently Shifting Semicolon [pdf] by tfoil2 on Saturday April 11, 2015 @03:23PM (#9360385)
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
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Silently Shifting Semicolon [pdf] by avandeursen on Saturday April 11, 2015 @04:06PM (#9360565)
Yes, it is from the "Summit oN Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL)", May 3-6, 2015.

http://snapl.org/2015/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Silently Shifting Semicolon [pdf] by acqq on Saturday April 11, 2015 @04:31PM (#9360696)
Then 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.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Silently Shifting Semicolon [pdf] by madanMus on Tuesday April 14, 2015 @02:54AM (#9372511)
The 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).
[ Parent | on HN ]