[cpp-threads] RE: "Agenda" for august 23-25 concurrency meeting

[Doug Lea]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> On 9/2/06, Herb Sutter <hsutter at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> P.S.: For the examples I just gave below, assume transitivity doesn't 
>> hold, and
>> then the question: What if I used locks to protect x and y?
> 
> Then it's all fine and dandy. Lack of remote write atomicity is not an
> issue if you use locks to protect x and y. 


This sounded familiar, but it took me a few days before I recalled
where I saw a proof of (essentially) this a decade ago. See
   http://hal.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/07/41/23/PDF/RR-2557.pdf
   From Causal Consistency to Sequential Consistency in Shared Memory Systems
   M Raynal, A Schiper - Proc. 15th Int. Conf. FST&TCS
for this and some other observations about relationships between
sequential consistency and a version of causal consistency
that I'm still not sure is the same as Herb is proposing.

-Doug