Re: Portable memory barrier?

[Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2017 at 3:13:27 AM UTC-4, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 10/05/2017 02:51, Jere wrote:
> 
> > Is there a method besides Atomic?  If I am implementing a generic FIFO (lock
> > free) and the FIFO elements are complex data types that may not be able to be
> > atomic, do I have any other options or are protected objects my only way out?
> 
> But you don't need elements atomic only index has to. If I understood 
> Randy's explanation correctly atomic access to the buffer index will 
> give you the barrier between index and element accesses which is all 
> that is required.

Followup to my previous email:
Perhaps it is easier for me to explain what I think is happening:

Key
Type => Prevents Compiler Reordering => Prevents CPU Reordering

After reading the various responses I am under the impression that:
Volatile => NO  => NO
Atomic   => YES => YES

I had hoped it was 
Volatile => YES => NO
Atomic   => YES => YES