Subj : Re: [.NET] Volatile Fields [correction] To : comp.programming.threads From : Joe Seigh Date : Tue Sep 20 2005 03:39 pm David Hopwood wrote: > Joe Seigh wrote: > >>David Hopwood wrote: >> >>>Joe Seigh wrote: >>> >>> >>>>W and Y are stores by two different processors. Under processor >>>>consistency you aren't guaranteed to see them in order. >>> >>>. >>> >>>: >> >>That's not the official x86 memory model. > > > Please pay attention to what *you* wrote: > > >>>>W and Y are stores by two different processors. Under >>>>processor consistency you aren't guaranteed to see them in order. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Well, I was going by what I though was the earlier definition for processor consistency from the Intel docs and from an earlier Andy Glew posting http://groups.google.de/group/comp.arch/msg/96ec4a9fb75389a2 It's not that clear and concise and probably not worth arguing about at this point. I know what the processor consistency definition in the above paper is. I'll guess I'll just wait for a clearer statement from Intel on what their memory model actually is rather than argue about it any further. -- Joe Seigh When you get lemons, you make lemonade. When you get hardware, you make software. .