[cpp-threads] Sequential Consistency redux

[N.M. Maclaren]

On Nov 21 2011, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
>> Amusingly, this case shows that the note in 1.10p12 is misleading, and
>> is therefore inappropriate!  Notes are there for clarification, and
>> that one doesn't clarify ....
>
>What would you suggest as an alternative?  If I recall correctly,
>the history is that one of the Cambridge guys (Mark Batty, I believe)
>came up with a litmus test that was permitted in absence of 1.10p12.
>This litmus test motivated the addition of 1.10p12.

Oh, it's not the normative text I am talking about, but just the Note.
I would just drop the Note.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.