|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2008-07-01 04:18:16
|
On Monday 30 June 2008 15:49, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > > Well, I see that it would cause drd to not complain about stwcx > > accesses, by causing it to ignore them: > > It is on purpose that drd "ignores" atomic stores: in order to detect > data races on atomic variables, it is sufficient to detect races > between loads and regular stores w.r.t. atomic variables. It is not > necessary to record any information about atomic stores. Do you have an example to illustrate why that is so, or perhaps a semi-formal argument? J |