[boost] Re: Boost::thread feature request: thread priority

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-02 16:17:27

Maxim Egorushkin wrote:
> 
> "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:3F0288A6.5524C33_at_web.de...
> >
> > Maxim Egorushkin wrote:
> > >
> > > "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > > news:3F01494F.1E88A836_at_web.de...
> > > >
> > > > Maxim Egorushkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [... "ala Alexandrescu" volatiles ...]
> > > >
> > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE84807.DD00F4D0%40web.de
> > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3EE861E5.13B60F31%40web.de
> > > > (Subject: Re: volatile keyword usage philosophy (long!))
> > >
> > > Sorry, I failed to figure out the point in that topics.
> >
> > That's okay.
> 
> But I'd love to :). Is the Alexandrescu's idea of using volatile keyword for
> designating thread safe member functions somewhat "brain damaged"?

"Yeah, exactly."

http://google.com/groups?selm=3f01e07b%40usenet01.boi.hp.com
(Subject: Re: Does anyone think 'volatile' is a platform-independent 
 way to make variable access thread safe?)

Check out this entire thread. Follow the links. ;-)

regards,
alexander.