<html>
<head>
<base href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/">
</head>
<body>
<p>
<div>
<b><a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Segmentation fault in _cairo_traps_compositor_glyphs"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103037#c18">Comment # 18</a>
on <a class="bz_bug_link
bz_status_NEW "
title="NEW - Segmentation fault in _cairo_traps_compositor_glyphs"
href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=103037">bug 103037</a>
from <span class="vcard"><a class="email" href="mailto:fludkov.me@gmail.com" title="Mikhail Fludkov <fludkov.me@gmail.com>"> <span class="fn">Mikhail Fludkov</span></a>
</span></b>
<pre><a href="http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/atomic/memory_order">http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/atomic/memory_order</a> makes me think I'm mistaken.
everywhere I used memory_order_seq_cst, can be replaced with
memory_order_release. Because:
memory_order_release - All writes in the current thread are visible in other
threads that acquire the same atomic variable
memory_order_acquire - All writes in other threads that release the same atomic
variable are visible in the current thread
It is very hard to wrap my head around the topic. I think we are still fine
with the patch as all the operations (load/store/cmp_exchg) used in the patch
have the strongest semantic (memory_order_seq_cst).</pre>
</div>
</p>
<hr>
<span>You are receiving this mail because:</span>
<ul>
<li>You are the QA Contact for the bug.</li>
</ul>
</body>
</html>