[cpp-threads] Web site updated

[Alexander Terekhov]

On 2/13/07, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Similarly, I'd expect in
> >
> > a.store_raw( 5 );
> > a.store_raw( 6 );
> >
> > the first store to be optimized out.
>
> MMIO accesses, anyone?  Hardware timing analysis (especially if there
> is a short loop between the two)?
>
> Let's please just outlaw that sort of optimization for store_raw(), so
> that it can retain its full meaning.
>
> >                                      Ditto in
> >
> > a.store_release( 5 );
> > a.store_release( 6 );
> >
> > saving me one barrier. No correct program should rely on sneaking a load
> > from another thread between the two stores, since this is not guaranteed to
> > happen.
>
> Again, if MMIO or hardware timing is involved, there really can be correct
> programs that care.  In the MMIO case, the hardware might really rely on

Sure, but that's a topic about patching <iohw.h>/<hardware> from

http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2003/n1457.pdf

or something like that. Not general purpose threading.

regards,
alexander.