[boost] Re: volatile and thread-safety

From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 15:28:20

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:un0ck68r9.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>
> I had heard Andrei did something like this a while ago, but I missed
> the details until just now, when I stumbled across the article at
> http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=7998/cujcexp1902alexandr/.  I was a
> little disappointed at first because I always imagined something much
> more sophisticated, but the simplicity of Andrei's technique is also
> its beauty.  I wonder if it makes sense for us to implement:
>
>   a. A coding guideline in which threadsafe member functions are
>      volatile
>
>   b. Some infrastructure similar to his LockingPtr
>
> Thoughts?
>
This article was _much_ discussed on usenet.

Not everybody agreed with the original article, e.g. David Butenhof in

http://tinyurl.com/pd3g.
(Subject: Re: volatile, was: memory visibility between threads)

/Pavel