[cpp-threads] memory model

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 4/29/05, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
[...]
> Right. This is why "volatile" is not the same as "atomic".
> You always get barriers, but loads/stores of only those
> volatile variables smaller than some platform-dependent size are also
> atomic.

Please visit

http://www.google.de/groups?selm=40F4F750.FE8BCD9B%40web.de
http://www.google.de/groups?selm=40F647F8.F59FE644%40web.de

Uhmm,

http://www.google.de/groups?selm=40f77780_1%40news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com

<quote>

So while I do not think that "volatile" should have atomicity properties, 
it does appear that with Atomics (and a good VM that intrinsifies 
everything) you don't actually need 'volatile' (not withstanding that 
the memory semantics of Atomics are defined in terms of 'volatile' :) ).

</quote>

;-)

regards,
alexander.