<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>