From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-11 04:51:34
> Sorry for being dense, but what exactly do you mean when you say a read
> might not be atomic? Are you thinking of memory barriers here? Or is it
> something else? Is there somewhere a definition of what atomic exactly
> means here?
Atomic means that when you read the value, you get back either the initial
value, or one of the values that have been written (by the abstract machine)
so far, even in the presence of data races.
Atomicity by itself is rarely useful without acquire/release guarantees, so
memory barriers are definitely part of the same story.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk