Subj : Re: posix and lock-free algorithms
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : David Schwartz
Date : Thu Aug 11 2005 10:37 pm


"Joe Seigh" <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> wrote in message 
news:QdidnQeCm57An2HfRVn-uw@comcast.com...

> I think it would depend on the particular function what "synchronize 
> memory"
> means.  I can think of some implementations where some of the Posix 
> functions
> would be a no op and allow memory accesses to be reordered by the compiler
> and or hardware.

    I don't think it's at all reasonable to say that a function 
"synchronizes memory" if memory accesses can be reordered around it (as seen 
by another CPU that also uses a function that is required to "synchronize 
memory"). In fact,  I find this position totally unreasonable.

    DS

.