[karmakaze]

I was hoping that there were answers here. Instead I got:

  Go Memory Model
  Two purposes:
  ● Make guarantees for programmers.
  ● Allow compilers/hardware to make certain changes to programs.
  Ideally, perfectly balanced. In practice, more conservative: might do neither.
  Explicit concern: Leave room for future refinement, refraining from:
  ● making debatable guarantees to programmers
  ● allowing compilers/hardware to make debatable changes to programs

and specifically I was curious about sync/atomic and only got a proposal (which ironically says 'be like Java'):

  Package sync/atomic is conspicuously missing.
  Proposal: match Java volatile and C++ memory_order_seq_cst.
  ● An atomic write happens before an atomic read that observes the write.
  ● The outcome of atomic operations must be consistent with a total order over
  all atomic operations in the program.

TL;DR

  Go Memory Model

  Semantics based on happens-before:
  ● If p imports q, q’s init happens before p’s.
  ● Package main’s init happens before main.main
  ● The go statement happens before the created goroutine’s execution
  ● A send (or close) on a channel happens before the receive
  ● Unlock happens before subsequent Lock

  A read r is allowed to observe a write w to location v if:
  ● r does not happen before w
  ● There is no write w’ to v such that w < w’ < r. [< is happens-before]
  A read r is therefore guaranteed to observe w if:
  ● w happens before r (w < r)
  ● For any other write w’ to v, w’ < w or r < w’
  Intent: like DRF-SC without allowing compilers to ruin programmers’ lives.

Note: DRF-SC Data Race Free-Sequentially Consistent