http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50834
--- Comment #2 from Pierre <bergerp at laposte dot net> 2011-10-23 10:10:29 UTC --- Ok first, thanks for the explanation ! I think the ambiguity comes from the order in which these statements are read by someone not familiar with this : 1) First you find the reference to SGI STL thread safety in the libstdc++ documentation 2) Then, you read the SGI STL thread safety definition, where you find that concurrent read accesses are safe 3) Then you go back to the libstdc++ documentation, where you see that concurrent read accesses should be considered unsafe, "unless otherwise documented as safe". So you're right, they are actually documented as safe in the SGI STL definition, but what the unaware reader thinks is : "what's the use of telling my NOW that they should be considered unsafe" ! I hope this will help you when rewriting this documentation page to comply with the C++11 definition. Regards, Pierre
