From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-16 09:42:10
----- Original Message -----
> Second: I don't see how these systems could possibly claim to be
> anyway -- I have the usual questions about the guarantee of observable
> behaviour, side effects, and sequence points -- which I'm sure you've
> before. My question: why can't these guarantees be used to prevent
> with double-checked locking?
Simply: because the standard doesn't apply to multithreaded or
multiprocessor systems. Threading isn't covered, so if you make a
multiprocessor system it's an extension, and you can define any behavior you
> BTW, please respond privately; this really isn't a Boost discussion.
Sorry, I think it is. ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk