From 8a11172d6b7707818142861f9405faeec7768af6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Budzynski <budziq@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 14:51:44 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] stabilized compiler_fences (fixes #41091)

---
 .../src/library-features/compiler-fences.md   | 106 ------------------
 src/libcore/sync/atomic.rs                    |   2 +-
 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 107 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 src/doc/unstable-book/src/library-features/compiler-fences.md

diff --git a/src/doc/unstable-book/src/library-features/compiler-fences.md b/src/doc/unstable-book/src/library-features/compiler-fences.md
deleted file mode 100644
index b1e36ab13d5..00000000000
--- a/src/doc/unstable-book/src/library-features/compiler-fences.md
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,106 +0,0 @@
-# `compiler_fences`
-
-The tracking issue for this feature is: [#41091]
-
-[#41091]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41091
-
-------------------------
-
-The `compiler_fences` feature exposes the `compiler_fence` function
-in `std::sync::atomic`. This function is conceptually similar to C++'s
-`atomic_signal_fence`, which can currently only be accessed in nightly
-Rust using the `atomic_singlethreadfence_*` instrinsic functions in
-`core`, or through the mostly equivalent literal assembly:
-
-```rust
-#![feature(asm)]
-unsafe { asm!("" ::: "memory" : "volatile") };
-```
-
-A `compiler_fence` restricts the kinds of memory re-ordering the
-compiler is allowed to do. Specifically, depending on the given ordering
-semantics, the compiler may be disallowed from moving reads or writes
-from before or after the call to the other side of the call to
-`compiler_fence`. Note that it does **not** prevent the *hardware*
-from doing such re-ordering. This is not a problem in a single-threaded,
-execution context, but when other threads may modify memory at the same
-time, stronger synchronization primitives are required.
-
-## Examples
-
-`compiler_fence` is generally only useful for preventing a thread from
-racing *with itself*. That is, if a given thread is executing one piece
-of code, and is then interrupted, and starts executing code elsewhere
-(while still in the same thread, and conceptually still on the same
-core). In traditional programs, this can only occur when a signal
-handler is registered. In more low-level code, such situations can also
-arise when handling interrupts, when implementing green threads with
-pre-emption, etc.
-
-To give a straightforward example of when a `compiler_fence` is
-necessary, consider the following example:
-
-```rust
-# use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicBool, AtomicUsize};
-# use std::sync::atomic::{ATOMIC_BOOL_INIT, ATOMIC_USIZE_INIT};
-# use std::sync::atomic::Ordering;
-static IMPORTANT_VARIABLE: AtomicUsize = ATOMIC_USIZE_INIT;
-static IS_READY: AtomicBool = ATOMIC_BOOL_INIT;
-
-fn main() {
-    IMPORTANT_VARIABLE.store(42, Ordering::Relaxed);
-    IS_READY.store(true, Ordering::Relaxed);
-}
-
-fn signal_handler() {
-    if IS_READY.load(Ordering::Relaxed) {
-        assert_eq!(IMPORTANT_VARIABLE.load(Ordering::Relaxed), 42);
-    }
-}
-```
-
-The way it is currently written, the `assert_eq!` is *not* guaranteed to
-succeed, despite everything happening in a single thread. To see why,
-remember that the compiler is free to swap the stores to
-`IMPORTANT_VARIABLE` and `IS_READ` since they are both
-`Ordering::Relaxed`. If it does, and the signal handler is invoked right
-after `IS_READY` is updated, then the signal handler will see
-`IS_READY=1`, but `IMPORTANT_VARIABLE=0`.
-
-Using a `compiler_fence`, we can remedy this situation:
-
-```rust
-#![feature(compiler_fences)]
-# use std::sync::atomic::{AtomicBool, AtomicUsize};
-# use std::sync::atomic::{ATOMIC_BOOL_INIT, ATOMIC_USIZE_INIT};
-# use std::sync::atomic::Ordering;
-use std::sync::atomic::compiler_fence;
-
-static IMPORTANT_VARIABLE: AtomicUsize = ATOMIC_USIZE_INIT;
-static IS_READY: AtomicBool = ATOMIC_BOOL_INIT;
-
-fn main() {
-    IMPORTANT_VARIABLE.store(42, Ordering::Relaxed);
-    // prevent earlier writes from being moved beyond this point
-    compiler_fence(Ordering::Release);
-    IS_READY.store(true, Ordering::Relaxed);
-}
-
-fn signal_handler() {
-    if IS_READY.load(Ordering::Relaxed) {
-        assert_eq!(IMPORTANT_VARIABLE.load(Ordering::Relaxed), 42);
-    }
-}
-```
-
-A deeper discussion of compiler barriers with various re-ordering
-semantics (such as `Ordering::SeqCst`) is beyond the scope of this text.
-Curious readers are encouraged to read the Linux kernel's discussion of
-[memory barriers][1], the C++ references on [`std::memory_order`][2] and
-[`atomic_signal_fence`][3], and [this StackOverflow answer][4] for
-further details.
-
-[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/memory-barriers.txt
-[2]: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order
-[3]: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/atomic/atomic_signal_fence/
-[4]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/18454971/472927
diff --git a/src/libcore/sync/atomic.rs b/src/libcore/sync/atomic.rs
index 09f3586a8c9..c6291630a35 100644
--- a/src/libcore/sync/atomic.rs
+++ b/src/libcore/sync/atomic.rs
@@ -1703,7 +1703,7 @@ pub fn fence(order: Ordering) {
 /// [`AcqRel`]: enum.Ordering.html#variant.AcqRel
 /// [`Relaxed`]: enum.Ordering.html#variant.Relaxed
 #[inline]
-#[unstable(feature = "compiler_fences", issue = "41091")]
+#[stable(feature = "compiler_fences", since = "1.22.0")]
 pub fn compiler_fence(order: Ordering) {
     unsafe {
         match order {
-- 
2.44.0