[boost] Re: volatile and thread-safety

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 15:57:55

David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> 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/.  

Sorry, but this is kinda "Most Famous King of Trolls" article. Really. 

c.l.c++.mod: (Subject: Re: volatile -- what does it mean in 
relation to member functions?)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D934ECB.8CD73030%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D99EF5F.B9D8C5B8%40web.de
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D9B7791.1780A701%40web.de

>                                                            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

Nope.

> 
>   b. Some infrastructure similar to his LockingPtr

Nope.

> 
> Thoughts?

Andrei[/CUJ] should really pull it off.

regards,
alexander.