On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Andrey Semashev
wrote:
> On 14.08.2015 13:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 14 August 2015 at 10:54, Andrey Semashev
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Otherwise I cannot see how (x==0 && y==0) could happen. The last load in
>>> each thread is sequenced after the first seq_cst st
On 14.08.2015 13:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 10:54, Andrey Semashev wrote:
Otherwise I cannot see how (x==0 && y==0) could happen. The last load in
each thread is sequenced after the first seq_cst store and both stores are
ordered with respect to each other, so one of the t
On 14 August 2015 at 10:54, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On 14.08.2015 11:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 14 August 2015 at 01:37, Andrey Semashev wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. Is my test valid or is there a flaw that I'm missing?
>>
>>
>> The cppmem tool at http://svr-pes20-cppmem.cl.cam.ac.uk/cppmem/ shows
On 14.08.2015 11:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 14 August 2015 at 01:37, Andrey Semashev wrote:
1. Is my test valid or is there a flaw that I'm missing?
The cppmem tool at http://svr-pes20-cppmem.cl.cam.ac.uk/cppmem/ shows
that there are consistent executions where (x==0 && y==0) is true. I
use
On 14 August 2015 at 01:37, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> 1. Is my test valid or is there a flaw that I'm missing?
The cppmem tool at http://svr-pes20-cppmem.cl.cam.ac.uk/cppmem/ shows
that there are consistent executions where (x==0 && y==0) is true. I
used this code:
int main() {
atomic_int a = 0;
