[cpp-threads] Implicit Conversion for Atomics

[Boehm, Hans]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpp-threads-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk
> [mailto:cpp-threads-bounces at decadentplace.org.uk] On Behalf
> Of Paul E. McKenney
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 4:15 PM
> To: C++ threads standardisation
> Cc: c++std-ext at accu.org; c++std-lib at accu.org
> Subject: Re: [cpp-threads] Implicit Conversion for Atomics
>
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:28:18PM -0800, Herb Sutter wrote:
> > Haven't read the proposal yet (I will!) but to comment on
> this part as someone who's presenting it now:
> >
> > > > I'd also add that
> > > >
> > > >     Implicit Load Encourages SC-focused Presentations
> >
> > That's going to be true anyway, with or without implicit load. :-)
> > Even nearly all the academic lock-free papers don't say where the
> > fences/etc. should go and assume SC, and that's a far
> higher audience
> > bar than industry presentations.
>
> Which by the way is one reason that the academic lock-free
> papers have had so little impact on practitioners -- the code
> in those papers, even when free of other bugs, often fails to
> run on real (non-SC) systems.  ;-)
I'm not sure I'd agree with that assessment.  It seems to me that this is one of lots of issues, which I'd have a hard time prioritizing.  Another major reason seems to be that these algorithms are often difficult to understand and adapt to the slightly different problems that people encounter in practice.  And when you add all the necessary details, the result may not perform acceptably, compared to the lock-based version.

Hans