From 2d1ca8318810ccafb3fe53cae6de10aea9a27aad Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?utf8?q?G=C3=BCnther=20Foidl?= Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2022 16:25:52 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Fixed relative links in Memory-model.md (#79785) --- docs/design/specs/Memory-model.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/design/specs/Memory-model.md b/docs/design/specs/Memory-model.md index f184ac222f6..6018d805f4c 100644 --- a/docs/design/specs/Memory-model.md +++ b/docs/design/specs/Memory-model.md @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ The ordering side-effects of reference assignment should not be used for general There was a lot of ambiguity around the guarantees provided by object assignments. Going forward the runtimes will only provide the guarantees described in this document. -_It is believed that compiler optimizations do not violate the ordering guarantees in sections about [data-dependent reads](~#data-dependent-reads-are-ordered) and [object assignments](~#object-assignment), but further investigations are needed to ensure compliance or to fix possible violations. That is tracked by the following issue:_ https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/79764 +_It is believed that compiler optimizations do not violate the ordering guarantees in sections about [data-dependent reads](#data-dependent-reads-are-ordered) and [object assignments](#object-assignment), but further investigations are needed to ensure compliance or to fix possible violations. That is tracked by the following issue:_ https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/issues/79764 ## Instance constructors .NET runtime does not specify any ordering effects to the instance constructors. -- 2.34.1