On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:09 AM, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Mikulas Patocka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
>
>> Even worse, gcc doesn't use these additional bytes. If you try this:
>>
>> extern void f(int *i);
>> void g()
>> {
>> int
ighly undesirable. This is why any variable that is
shared over threads has to be declared volatile, even when using
explicit locking calls.
I hope the above brings more clarity in this discussion.
Bart Van Assche.
g in scalable shared-memory
multiprocessors, International Symposium on Computer Architecture,
1990, http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=325102&dl=ACM&coll=GUIDE).
Bart Van Assche.
ynchronization
function and accesses to variables.
Maybe it's a good idea to add a chapter to the gcc manual about
multithreaded programming, such that gcc users who did not follow this
discussion can look up this kind of information easily ?
Bart Van Assche.
rd. Your reply did not acknowledge
nor deny this.
Bart Van Assche.
er won't write code that triggers (2).
And as you may have noted, I do not agree with Hans Boehm where he
states that the combination of C/C++ with POSIX threads cannot result
in correctly working programs. I believe that the issues raised by
Hans Boehm can be solved.
Bart Van Assche.
On 10/28/07, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bart Van Assche wrote:
>
> > My opinion is that, given the importance of multithreading, it should
> > be documented in the gcc manual which optimizations can cause trouble
> > in multithreaded software (such as (
