Subj : Re: posix and lock-free algorithms To : comp.programming.threads From : David Schwartz Date : Thu Aug 11 2005 06:27 pm "Joe Seigh" wrote in message news:ysednZ2dnZ2L6h6gnZ2dnWFYZt-dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@comcast.com... > David Schwartz wrote: >> "Alexander Terekhov" wrote in message >> news:42FB7410.5FD8C256@web.de... >> No, it can't. The POSIX lock/unlock functions are defined as >> synchronizing memory. If this means anything at all, it means >> loads/stores can't be reordered across those functions. > "synchronizing memory" is left undefined. So what? > I don't think you can supply your > own arbitrary definition. Unless of course if you are a Posix implementer > and then spontaneous comprehension of the true meaning of Posix will > happen > which by official Posix definition will be whatever thoughts are floating > around your head at the time. It's at least a full memory barrier that memory operations can't be reordered around. Nothing else can be said to "synchronize memory" without lots of caveats. Your argument is essentially that because it's not perfect it says nothing. I reject that. DS .