Is CPU_MULTI_COPY_ATOMIC the correct test here?

[Andrew Haley]

On 1/14/20 2:37 PM, Zhengyu Gu wrote:
>
> Here is the discussion on this particular issue ...
>
> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-compiler-dev/2019-September/034900.html

The code (and its comment) seems to be related to whether this is a
relaxed-memory machine. Much of the discussion seems to be related to
that, too. I can't see any discussion about multi-copy atomicity.

It seems to me that we do want this fence on AArch64, but we should not
define CPU_MULTI_COPY_ATOMIC. I can't see why the concepts are mixed
up.

-- 
Andrew Haley  (he/him)
Java Platform Lead Engineer
Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671