[cpp-threads] First draft of coherence requirements from n3136

[Nelson, Clark]

The write-write coherence requirement should use the words "atomic object M", like all the other coherence requirements.

The phrase "is knows as" should instead read, "is known as" (in four places).

I'm tempted to suggest that the names of the different coherence requirements actually shouldn't be italicized as definitions, since there aren't going to be any (normative) references to them from the standard itself.

In the description of read-write coherence, there should be a comma before "then". Also, it currently reads, "shall either ... or shall" -- the parallelism is poor (no pun intended). My suggestion would be to delete the second "shall".

In the description of write-read coherence, delete the hyphen in "happens-before".

I think the final note needs a little polishing. I think it would be better if it started, "The visible sequence of side effects", since it no longer appears in the paragraph defining "visible sequence of side effects". I also suggest, "The intended reading <del>of these four coherence requirements</del> is that....", because we're really talking about the reading of almost the whole section.

Clark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cpp-threads-bounces at decadent.org.uk [mailto:cpp-threads-
> bounces at decadent.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul E. McKenney
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:34 AM
> To: michaelw at ca.ibm.com; bkoz at redhat.com; mjb220 at cl.cam.ac.uk
> Cc: cpp-threads at decadent.org.uk
> Subject: [cpp-threads] First draft of coherence requirements from n3136
> 
> Hello!
> 
> Attached is a revision of n3125 and n3136 that has a draft of 1.10p13 and the
> new coherence paragraphs at the very end of the document.
> I will be folding in the other comments and extracting wording into working-
> document order, but wanted to let Mark Batty take a look at this draft of the
> coherence requirements.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul