Boost logo

Boost :

From: Pedro Lamarão (pedro.lamarao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-01 07:19:22

Roland Schwarz escreveu:

> 2) atomicity better would be addressed by the compiler, given a
> suitable memory model, than as a library.

> 3) Despite 2) it would be possible to write a library, but it will
> be hard to get processor independent semantics. E.g. there is one
> concept of read/write/full memory barriers or another of acquire/release
> semantics for SMP.

> 5) Is it worth the effort to create a library with processor
> independent semantics, at the price of not being optimal? E.g. by doing
> away with the various kinds of barriers, instead simply requiring
> atomicity and full memory barrier semantics for the operation? Which
> operations, besides load and store would be essential?

The current working paper for the Standard Library contains chapter 29
"Atomic operations library".

This chapter currently contains only a forward declaration (hehe) to the
  draft proposal by Hans Bohem.

It's sister paper, "Sequencing and the concurrency memory model", is:

  Pedro Lamarão

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at