[cpp-threads] modes, pass 2

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 5/9/05, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
[...]
> > I'd rather expose (compile time feature testing required) LL/LR and SC.
> >
> 
> Requiring feature testing is a really terrible thing for a standard.
> Show me cases that you think demand doing it.

Well, see

http://www.decadentplace.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads_decadentplace.org.uk/2005-May/000367.html

I mean mutex_for_XBOX_NEXT thing vs CAS-based "equvalent".

Fallible CAS can be used in unlock(), but what about reduntant loads
(in the case of CAS-based variation) in lock()?

Apart from that, see also "B.3 List Insertion" in Book II, and take a 
look at 

http://groups.google.es/groups?selm=3EE0769C.7989FC1F%40xemaps.com
http://groups.google.es/groups?threadm=425F97A9.898918D3%40web.de

It's about strongly thread-safe shared_ptr<>-like beasts, so to speak. 

regards,
alexander.