[cpp-threads] Coherence Requirement wording changes for 1.10p13

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 04:52:53PM -0400, Michael Wong wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi all, Benjamin Kosnick and I have made the following updates to the
> coherence requirement paragraph based on today session with Peter Sewell
> and Mark Batty. It is available for viewing on the Rapperswil concurrence
> wiki:
> http://wiki.dinkumware.com/twiki/pub/Wg21rapperswil/ConcurrencyWorkingGroup/Coherence_Requirement.html
> 
> This is to fix several NB comments GB 11, GB 12, CA 18, CA 19, CA 20.
> We are asking for feedback comments of this restructuring and the insertion
> of the new paragraphs for CORW and COWR as outlined in Sections 2.1 and 2.2
> in their paper:
> http://wiki.dinkumware.com/twiki/pub/Wg21rapperswil/ConcurrencyWorkingGroup/cpp-fcd-01.pdf
> 
> This will not be voted at the end of this week, but we want to have this
> early drafting ready for review comment to make sure we are heading in the
> right direction, and if all goes well, we propose to potentially add
> diagrams of each of the coherence requirements as discussed today.

Hello, Michael,

I like the way this breaks out the write/write, read/read, ... cases!

But given the restrictions imposed by these cases, is it really possible
to have more than one visible sequence of side effects?

							Thanx, Paul