Subj : Re: YALFAm (Yet Another Lock Free Approach, maybe)
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : doug
Date : Sat May 28 2005 12:42 am


"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message 
news:d781sp$kil$1@nntp.webmaster.com...
>
> "David Butenhof" <david.butenhof@hp.com> wrote in message 
> news:9l%ie.5689$566.5130@news.cpqcorp.net...
>
>> The problem with all this is that Microsoft code and documentation was 
>> written for a really primitive in-order X86 architecture. The code has 
>> been adapted somewhat randomly along the way, documentation has not been 
>> updated to reflect DESIGN INTENT, and in fact it's by no means clear that 
>> there really IS any design intent.
>
>    The evidence we have from various unofficial sources and from the 
> evolving documentation is that Microsoft intends the Interlocked* 
> functions to continue to have on all platforms the exact same memory 
> visbility semantics they happen to have on current x86 platforms. This 
> seems to be as close to a guarantee as we are ever going to get.
>
>    DS
>
>
Just for those of us in the cheap seats:

"exact same memory visbility semantics they happen to have on current x86 
platforms"

Can you tell us what these are?

Ta!
Doug

.