[cpp-threads] memory model

[Boehm, Hans]

Right.  But conceivably sig_atomic_t could have special properties.
I admit this might get weird if volatile sig_atomic_t
did not require a memory barrier, but everything else did.

I updated the strawman proposal to use "mutable volatile",
and made a few other minor changes.

See http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/c++mm/mm.html#volatile

Hans 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> Cpp-threads_decadentplace.org.uk-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk 
> [mailto:Cpp-threads_decadentplace.org.uk-bounces at decadentplace
> .org.uk] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 11:56 AM
> To: cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [cpp-threads] memory model
> 
> 
> Boehm, Hans wrote:
> > I'm not convinced by the signal handler or thread example, since I 
> > think we can come up with "conforming" DSM implementations on which 
> > those break.  And I don't think "volatile" is currently 
> guaranteed to 
> > be async-signal-safe anyway.
> 
> volatile sig_atomic_t is, see 1.9/9.
> 
> -- 
> cpp-threads mailing list
> cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk 
> http://decadentplace.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpp-threads_decad
entplace.org.uk