[cpp-threads] Yet another visibility question

[Peter Dimov]

Boehm, Hans wrote:
>> From: Peter Dimov
>> 
>> Hans Boehm wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Just to clarify, "ordinary variables" is a shorthand for
>> "variables read or written using ordinary operations", right?
>> We won't require explicit tagging to distinguish "atomic
>> variables" from "ordinary variables", I hope. :-)

> Actually, in Lawrence's and my current draft proposal, we do
> distinguish.  There are atomic types, even at the C level.

Is the draft available for viewing?