Re: [boost] [thread] Some thoughts about "atomic"

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.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2047.html

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

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2052.htm

--
  Pedro Lamarão