[cpp-threads] RE: volatile, memory models, threads

[Doug Lea]

Herb Sutter wrote:
> 
> 
> And for what examples does this cause issues/limitations? I was curious
> about your statement that Java volatile could be used in a case where
> the proposed C++ volatile couldn't, which makes me wonder/concerned
> about whether we're closing doors we shouldn't close.
> 

Sorry for not being clear about the context. I believe that the current
discussion by Nick et al surrounds whether we can use ANY kind of qualifier. If
we can't then we surely can't use volatile, or __async_volatile or atomic etc.
If we can use one of these, then the details can be put back up for negotiation.

But given the discussions about qualifiers etc, it doesn't seem to me
that we can revive this proposal. The main problem is that
we only care about and can give semantics for simple scalar types.
We don't know what to make of the others, and other
parts of the C and C++ specs don't seem to give us room to
do anything reasonable.

-Doug