[cpp-threads] Yet another visibility question

[Hans Boehm]

The intent is definitely not to require per-variable TSO for ordinary
variables.  As you point out, it probably doesn't matter which way it's
stated here.  But I think it's cleaner to explicitly only talk about
synchronization operations.

Hans

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Nelson, Clark wrote:

> > But Ben's objection still stands.  So I think we want
> >
> > "All modifications to a particular atomic memory location or lock L
> > occur in some
> > particular total order, referred to as the modification order for L."
>
> Another concern I had about your proposal was that you seemed to be
> saying that even non-atomic operations on a specific memory location had
> to have some total ordering. Now you seem to be backing away from that.
>
> But perhaps I've been reading too much into one formulation or the
> other, so I'll just ask: do you mean to require a total order of
> non-atomic side effects to a given memory location? (Now that I think
> about it some more, I'm guessing not; wouldn't any case in which it
> would matter be a data race, and therefore undefined behavior?)
>
> Clark
>
> --
> cpp-threads mailing list
> cpp-threads at decadentplace.org.uk
> http://www.decadentplace.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cpp-threads
>