On 22 October 2007 12:17, Tomash Brechko wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 12:07:20 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> And even volatile wouldn't help if the code said
>>
>> if (i > x)
>> var += i;
>>
>> instead of a simple assignment. The race in fact *does* exist in the
>> original program, but is hidden by the fact that you don't care which of
>> two operations that overwrite the previous value complete in which order,
>> but you're assuming the operation that modifies var is atomic, and there's
>> nothing to innately guarantee that in the original program. The race
>> condition *is* already there.
>
> Why? For that example, if executed verbatim, it is either i > x
> always false, or the mutex is properly acquired. No one is assuming
> atomic update.
*What* mutex are you referring to? There is no mutex in that code.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
