Subj : Re: Memory visibility and MS Interlocked instructions
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Alexander Terekhov
Date : Thu Sep 01 2005 07:33 pm


Sean Kelly wrote:
[...]
>                                                            msync.acq
> and msync.rel operations (to use atomic<> semantics) would both need
> the LOCK prefix.  Is this correct? 

No.
 
>                                    I'll admit that until this I was
> beginning to think that only msync.acq stores needed a LOCK.

That's not true either.

regards,
alexander.

.