In the C11 code? I'm not up to speed with that version of the spec, but unless there is behaviour invoked by the use of _Atomic, the code looks to me to be performing normal, non-atomic read/writes.
Another reply says there are full barriers being automatically used, but that doesn't address the problem I've described.
That is the behavior invoked by "atomic".
The general gist is that "manual" read/write barriers were too difficult to think about and led to bugs. Instead of having the programmer put the read/write barriers in the correct locations, modern compilers put a type-specification on variables... and then its the compiler's job to put the barriers in the correct location.
This turned out to be necessary, because the compiler's optimizer kept rearranging code (!!!) around memory barriers anyway. So the "compiler" needs to participate in any of the barriers, especially at higher levels of optimization (-O3 rearranges a lot of code). If the compiler needs to participate, you might as well have the compiler handle the placement of those barriers.
"Atomic" variables by default will be sequentially-consistent (ie: the _maximum_ use of memory barriers for _maximum_ levels of consistency).
Atomic writes have nothing to do with memory barriers. On modern platforms atomic writes are available without memory barriers of any kind.
Memory barriers do not cause events to become visible.
Only atomic writes do this; and so the question is not whether barriers are in use due to _Atomic, but whether atomic writes are in use due to the use of _Atomic.
_Atomic types can be read-modified-written atomically (if using a compound-assignment operator), or the postincrement/pre-increment operations.
In these circumstances, the memory-barriers used for those atomic-operations will be of the sequentially-consistent memory model.
------
So yes, that "++*barrier" operation is read-modify-write atomically AND with memory-barriers in sequential-consistency style
-----
I don't believe that "atomics" are enough to solve this problem. At a minimum, I expect acq-consume to be required (not that acq-consume model even works in practice... so acq-release for today's compilers). That's why I'm still talking memory model / fences here.
Not only is an atomic operation required, but so too is the "publishing" of this information needing to happen in the proper order. Fortunately, C11's _Atomic implementation solves both issues.
The quoted material does not describe this assertion.