You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
If t3 observes LOCK=1, LOCK=2, then t2's RMW operation must see t1's store of 1 and thus DATA=42. In the failing execution t2 in fact runs first, yet t3 observes t2's store after t1s, which is incoherent with the modification order of LOCK.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It fails and can be cured in the same way as the original test. As @Darksonn wrote, it looks like this fails for good reasons: some sequential consistency would be required to make sure all 3 threads observe the same modification order.
The above test case fails under loom with the following execution:
If t3 observes
LOCK=1, LOCK=2
, then t2's RMW operation must see t1's store of1
and thusDATA=42
. In the failing execution t2 in fact runs first, yet t3 observes t2's store after t1s, which is incoherent with the modification order ofLOCK
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: