Subj : Re: YALFAm (Yet Another Lock Free Approach, maybe) To : comp.programming.threads From : Chris Thomasson Date : Thu May 19 2005 06:31 am "David Butenhof" wrote in message news:9l%ie.5689$566.5130@news.cpqcorp.net... > Chris Thomasson wrote: >>>Even with the _InterlockedCompareExchange() intrinsic function on >>>Windows? >> >> It might be safe... >> >> Yet again, it might not be so safe after all... > > Gee, Chris. I have this odd feeling of deja vu. Haven't we, uh, been here > before? ;-) I am basically saying that you can't really trust Microsoft compilers wrt lock-free programming. > So you can experiment and bet your code that they INTEND it to do what you > currently observe, and risk that they'll change it, and that future > adaptations will remain true to your assumption... or you can play a > little safer and go by the most loose interpretation of what they actually > SAY. Or you can be paranoid and assume they'll probably screw it up in the > future for their own reasons (or for no reason at all), and not trust it > as far as it could throw you... Exactly. .