Subj : Re: Memory visibility and MS Interlocked instructions
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Joe Seigh
Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 01:19 pm

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> To Joe: why don't you simply spend your weekend studying the archives.
> 
> jupiter.robustserver.com/pipermail/cpp-threads_decadentplace.org.uk
> 

Done.

1)  None of you know how to define semantics for atomic ops.
2)  You have no examples, let alone compelling ones, on why
    anything more complex than simple memory ordering needs to be
    exposed at the api level rather than left as an implementation
    decision. *



* The one exception I'm aware of (because I use it myself) is atomic
load depends and we can get away with that because so much of lock-free
depends on pointer swizzling.

-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

.