[cpp-threads] Memory model counterproposal: synchronizedoperations

[Boehm, Hans]

I'm also not sure that it's rare in regular C/C++.

Would the compiler benefit much from such a rule?  My mental
model is that an auto variable which has had it's address
taken (and the address has escaped sufficiently that the compiler
can't track it) pretty much needs to be treated like a global anyway?

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 Nelson, Clark
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 5:22 PM
> To: cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk
> Subject: RE: [cpp-threads] Memory model counterproposal: 
> synchronizedoperations
> 
> 
> > It is fairly reasonable to pass the address of a local
> > variable as the 
> > argument to the thread function (if the parent then does a 
> > join.) Doesn't 
> > OpenMP do that all the time? 
> 
> Yes, I suppose it does. And my proposal for the C/C++ 
> standard would invalidate it. But technically, that would be 
> interesting only for someone who was trying to implement 
> OpenMP in terms of portable C or
> C++.
> 
> Which may indeed be interesting. I'm just trying to ask the 
> right questions.
> 
> Clark
> 
> -- 
> cpp-threads mailing list
> cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk 
> http://decadentplace.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/cpp-threads_decad
entplace.org.uk