core.atomics and handling of backward MemoryOrders

[rsw0x via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 4 July 2015 at 07:16:09 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2015 00:50, "rsw0x via Digitalmars-d" 
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
> __sync_* builtins to the new (more compatible with how 
> core.atomics is supposed to function) __atomic_* builtins.
>>> [...]
> accepted as valid, but makes no sense.
>>> [...]
> both cases to throw a compilation error (using static assert).  
> However I'd like the core druntime team to be on board with 
> this.
>> [...]
> forgot until I read this.
>
> [...]

This is how it's currently implemented in C++ as of C++14, 
correct?
acquire semantics on a write and release semantics on a load make 
no sense, so this probably should be changed.