[cpp-threads] Yet another visibility question

[Peter Dimov]

Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 12/13/06, Peter Dimov <pdimov at mmltd.net> wrote:
>> Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> On 12/13/06, Peter Dimov <pdimov at mmltd.net> wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Soon.
>>
>> Any hints on how you intend to tag the atomic variables?
>
> There are distinct types, no tagging.  That is, atomic_int is a
> type name.

Hmmm. I've my doubts about that, it doesn't scale. Anyway, even under such a 
formulation, it still makes sense to me to not impose this requirement at 
memory model level; that is, not require TSO for all stores to the same 
atomic variable, but require TSO for all atomic stores to the same variable 
instead. This would leave you free to add a "non-competing store" operation 
for the atomic types if such an operation turns out to be needed (I remember 
Alexander Terekhov adding it to his atomic<> template at one point).