[cpp-threads] memory model

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 4/28/05, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Please stay away from volatiles. Please. In C/C++/POSIX they have
> > defined semantics that has really nothing to do with threads. Consider
> > also that some implementation use volatile to control granularity
> >
> > http://www.tru64unix.compaq.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V51_HTML/ARH9RBTE/DOCU0007.HTM#gran_sec
> > http://h30097.www3.hp.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V51_HTML/ARH9RBTE/DOCU0008.HTM
> >
> > and requiring them to add barriers would not fly I'm afraid.
> 
> I don't see any unsolvable probelms here.

And how would you solve it?

> 
> >
> > C/C++ volatiles are already quite messy and extending that mess
> > with (heavy) msync is NOT good, I believe.
> >
> 
> Please propose an alternative that is at least as usable for
> common usages for an average programmer. We don't know of any.

Well, try 

http://www.google.de/groups?threadm=EN7u9.8900%24Af5.345070%40newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net

regards,
alexander.