[concurrency-interest] Question about reordering and volatile
jmanson at cs.umd.edu
Tue Apr 1 18:37:50 EDT 2008
Joe Bowbeer wrote:
> Is it wrong or misleading for the FAQ to say:
> "Under the new memory model, accesses to volatile variables cannot be
> reordered with each other or nonvolatile variable accesses."
> I'd interpret that to mean that nothing can jump over a volatile access
> in either direction...
> By the way, the FAQ does later clarify that without a matching read, the
> volatile write doesn't happen-before anything, which suggests that
> unread volatile writes can be elided.
Let's go with "misleading" FTW. That sentence was more intended to draw
a contrast with the way things used to be. The following sentence is
the more accurate one.
I'll fix it.
More information about the Concurrency-interest