pre-LilleHammer mailing deadline

[Ben Hutchings]

I am attaching a couple of patches.  The first has a bunch of minor
improvements (IMHO) to style and clarity and also fixes the spacing
after abbreviations.  The second is an attempt to clarify the example of
duplicate reads from memory, which I thought was confusing due to the
mixing of variable and register names.

There is no mention of atomic operations other than as the potential
semantics of access to volatile objects.  If I'm not very much mistaken,
read-modify-write operations are essential to most lock-free algorithms.
Is there consensus that these belong in the library?  In any case, is
there not a question, similar to that for atomicity of volatile access,
of whether they should be optional, given the variation in native atomic
operations between architectures?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice.
                                - John Levine, moderator of comp.compilers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: issues-reload-example.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1273 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadbolt.decadentplace.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/attachments/20050306/5b1dbee9/issues-reload-example.bin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: issues-style.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 6769 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadbolt.decadentplace.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/attachments/20050306/5b1dbee9/issues-style.bin