Re: [boost] boost::shared_ptr<>::compare_and_swap()--AmIinsaneforwanting this?

From: Chris Thomasson (cristom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-02 07:00:14

"Sohail Somani" <s.somani_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:1C1EBEF8DBACDC439D038EA051674EC73EDF87_at_xbox.financialcad.com...
> Hi, sorry for the TP.

> I came across a post on the gcc mailing list today that says they are 
> working on > some sort of link time optimization. Specifically, they said 
> separately compiled > modules will no longer be safe from reordering. I 
> don't know if there is a
> distinction between what you say here: "All of its "critical-sequences" 
> are
> contained in externally assembled functions ( read all ) in order to 
> prevent a
> rouge C compiler from reordering anything that would corrupt the 
> data-structure" > and what is implied by the post.

> Would a toolchain that provides link time rejigging possibly make this 
> bomb at > > some point?

Well, that depends how how well the compiler in question supports the 
ability to turn this specific type of optimization on, or off... Humm... 
FWIW, here is what I have to say on the subject:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/a8d7067bc1425ae1

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/0afc1109d18c2991

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.programming.threads/msg/fd3b4b5a5cd7841e

http://appcore.home.comcast.net/vzdoc/atomic/static-init/
(section 2...)

Any thoughts?

;^)