Unlike barrier() (which I think I understand), mem_fence() does not affect all items in the work group.The OpenCL spec says (section 6.11.10), for mem_fence():
I know开发者_开发百科 that modern CPUs can execute out of order, However they always retire the results in-order, as described by wikipedia.
There are a couple of questions on this site asking whether using a volatile variable for atomic / multithreaded access is possible: See here, here, or here for example.
In regards to this question, I\'m interested only in x86 and x86-64. For MSVC 2005, the documentation for __faststore开发者_运维知识库fence says: \"Guarantees that every preceding store is globally v
According to the Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer\'s Manual the LOCK Signal Prefix \"ensures that the processor has exclusive use of any shared memory while the signal is asserted\"
I\'m experimenting with C++0x su开发者_如何学Pythonpport and there is a problem, that I guess shouldn\'t be there. Either I don\'t understand the subject or gcc has a bug.
On most common platforms (the most important being x86; I understand that some platforms have extremely difficult memory models that provide almost no guarantees useful for multithreading, but I don\'
加载中,请稍侯......