[cpp-threads] Revised Atomic Paper

[Ben Hutchings]

On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 16:34 -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > Finally, "we do not employ have not yet employed" should say one
> > or the other!
> 
> Hm.  That phrase includes deleted and inserted elements:
>   "we <del>do not employ</del> <ins>have not yet</ins> employed"
> 
> Does your browser not show them distinctly?  If not, any idea why?

I used my mailer's inline view, which apparently doesn't have styles for
those elements.  Sorry for the noise.

> > In "Lock-Free Property", paragraph 1, "all operations are wait-free or
> > none of them are" is wrong and was probably supposed to say that about
> > the lock-free property.
> 
> Hm.  Maybe you've been reviewing an earlier draft.  Caught that one
> as well.

The version I'm looking at is the only one I saw posted here, dated
2007-08-01.

> > The following sentences in the paragraph should be deleted.
> 
> Which sentences?  I'm no longer confident in what I might guess.

"Therefore, there is a single wait-free query per type. However, the
proposal defines operations on the atomic_flag type to be wait-free."

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
For every complex problem
there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.decadentplace.org.uk/pipermail/cpp-threads/attachments/20070816/86746975/attachment.pgp