[concurrency-interest] "Volatile-like" guarantees
niko at alum.mit.edu
Thu Feb 3 00:55:45 EST 2011
Niko Matsakis wrote:
> So, my first instinct was to place the volatile writes/reads in the
> order you show here, but I'm not sure that it provides the proper
> guarantees. In particular, isn't it possible that in some program run
> Rv synchronizes with Wv, but Rf still sees the write from Wf? In that
> case, the reads that follow Rf would not happen after the writes that
> preceded Wf.
Sorry, I wrote "Rv synchronizes with Wv", but I meant "Rv appears before
Wv in the total synchronization order". (In other words, Wv does not
happen before Rv.) I had the impression those were synonyms, but
re-reading the POPL JMM paper  I see that is not the case.
More information about the Concurrency-interest