Subj : Re: Memory visibility and MS Interlocked instructions
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Scott Meyers
Date : Thu Aug 25 2005 01:07 pm

Joe Seigh wrote:
 > No, you didn't miss anything.  Another incorrect DCL example.  Although
 > they haven't shown the reader code or how ComputeValue handles concurrent
 > invocations.  The "ComputedValue" could be write-only for all we know. :)

May I assume then that my understanding is correct that both writer and
reader must participate in a handshake to ensure that writer changes to
memory are visible to readers in a relaxed memory architecture?  If so,
would it be reasonable to conclude that the semantics of the interlocked
instructions are not generally implementable, though they may be
implementable on particular architectures?

Thanks,

Scott

.