Re: [PATCH memory-model] docs: memory-barriers: Add note on compiler transformation and address deps

[Jonas Oberhauser]

Am 10/20/2023 um 8:13 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 06:00:19PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > Am 10/20/2023 um 3:57 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> > > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:29:24AM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > > Am 10/19/2023 um 6:39 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:11:58PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Paul,
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > The compiler is forbidden from inventing pointer comparisons.
> > > > TIL :) Btw, do you remember a discussion where this is clarified? A quick
> > > > search didn't turn up anything.
> > > This was a verbal discussion with Richard Smith at the 2020 C++ Standards
> > > Committee meeting in Prague.  I honestly do not know what standardese
> > > supports this.
> > Richard Smith
> > Then this e-mail thread shall be my evidence for future discussion.
> I am sure that Richard will be delighted, especially given that he
> did not seem at all happy with this don't-invent-pointer-comparisons
> rule.  ;-)


Neither am I :D
He can voice his delightenment or lack thereof to me if we ever happen 
to meet in person.


> > I think this tiny rewrite makes it much more clear. Specifically it tells *why* the text is historical (and why we maybe don't need to read it anymore).
> Good point!  I reworked this a bit and added it to both HISTORICAL
> sections, with your Suggested-by.


The new version looks good to me!


> > > > > The longer-term direction, perhaps a few years from now, is for the
> > > > > first section to simply reference rcu_dereference.rst and for the second
> > > > > section to be removed completely.
> > > > Sounds good to me, but that doesn't mean we need to compromise the
> > > > readability in the interim :)
> > > Some compromise is needed for people that read the document some time
> > > back and are looking for something specific.
> > Yes. But the compromise should be "there's a blob of text other people don't
> > need to read", not "there's a blob of text that will leave other people
> > confused".
> Fair enough in general, but I cannot promise to never confuse people.
> This is after all memory ordering.  And different people will be confused
> by different things.


You can say that twice. In fact I suspect this is not the first time you 
say that :))

  jonas