[boost] Re: TR2 and C++0x heads up

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-28 11:31:26

Matt Hurd wrote:
[...]
> That said, for naive users do you have an opinion on the memory
> semantics locking and unlocking a mutex should provide to deliver "the
> least surprise" to a user.  x86 and sparc deliver a full fence for

Solaris (including x86-incarnation AFAIK) have locks that don't need 
interlocked read-{modify-}write in unlock() (similar to spinlocks). 
On x86, such unlock() has pure release semantics, not fully-fenced 
silliness.

[...]
> Your thoughts on
> memory vis requirements for locking and unlocking mutexes for the
> least surprise?

Uhmm, how about <http://tinyurl.com/77hvz>?

regards,
alexander.