Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.c++.moderated
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion C++ Threads, what's the status quo?
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Le Chaud Lapin  
View profile  
 More options Jan 8 2007, 3:59 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated
From: "Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibudu...@gmail.com>
Date: 8 Jan 2007 03:59:03 -0500
Local: Mon, Jan 8 2007 3:59 am
Subject: Re: C++ Threads, what's the status quo?
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Simon Farnsworth wrote:
> Further, the standard is silent on whether you can assume strict
> consistency, weak consistency, sequential consistency, causual consistency,
> or another consistency model.

> These are both important if you want to guarantee that an operation between
> two threads working in parallel on the same block of memory does what you
> expect. In a weak consistency model, it's impossible to implement a working
> mutex without knowing which operations are synchronisation operations; your
> environment typically handles this by arbitrarily declaring that some
> library calls are synchronisation operations.

I am happy to admit, I have no idea what these terms mean, but I will
look them up in about 10 minutes.

However, I see something missing in your post: atomic operations.  This
is the essence of my thesis.  I keep saying there will not be any
guarantees in any language if you do not have:

1.  Harwdware-based atomic operations.
2.  OS Support of synchronization.

People keep responding by demonstrating or alluding to C++ code that is
bound to not behave the way the programmer expected it to.

If that is the case, then I have said that a 1000 times:

No programmer in the world who is going to "implement safe threading in
C++" by writing generic C++ code without regard for 1 & 2 above.
*That* is where the guarantees come from.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

--
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google