[cpp-threads] Re: Increment/decrement operators on atomics package

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 4/27/07, Raul Silvera <rauls at ca.ibm.com> wrote:
[...]
> > on an atomic<> would effectively be a RMW? (Remote write atomicity, IRIW
> > and all that...)
>
> No. Part of the argument during the SC discussion was RMW operations
> wouldn't be needed to implement SC memory accesses, so that loads would be
> relatively cheap.
[...]
> Particularly for PPC, SC only requires fences between each pair of memory
> accesses,

Earlier you said that this is still being debated inside IBM.

Is the updated Book II publicly available?

regards,
alexander.