[cpp-threads] memory model

[Ben Hutchings]

Peter Dimov wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> 
> > Comments on the proposed memory model document:
> 
> It took me a while to realize this, but the definition of "canonical 
> execution" is flawed.
> 
> The C++ abstract machine has no notion of reading from a non-volatile 
> variable. That's why "side effects" only includes object modifications.
> 
> If you have:
> 
>     int a = 0;
> 
> the value of the expression 'a' is 0. There is no "read" involved in this 
> evaluation; the value of 'a' is just zero, period.
<snip>

I was thinking that lvalue-to-rvalue conversion would be a "read",
except for class types, where copying is distinct from this conversion.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
compatible: Gracefully accepts erroneous data from any source