[cpp-threads] Memory model counterproposal: synchronization operations

[Nelson, Clark]

It is well that it is already acknowledged (as measured by the
introduction of __async) that a simple access to a volatile object can
not be made into a synchronization operation (syncop), as Intel would
have to firmly oppose such a proposal.

But given that no existing syntax can reasonably be mapped to a syncop,
we don't see the point of adding a new type qualifier, and defining
accesses to such objects as syncops. Most especially considering that
there will in any event be library functions that imply syncops.

So we propose that only library functions (to be specified) will imply
syncops.

-- 
Clark Nelson		Vice chair, J16 (ANSI C++ standard committee)
Intel Corporation
clark.nelson at intel.com