On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 09:30:47 -0700, Greg Dyck wrote:
What does rule 3 require that isn't equally implied by rule 1?
Here is a program execution which is MCWA, but which
violates program order. Consequently, Rule 3 does not
imply Rule 1.
Initially, A = B = X = Y = 0.
T0 T1
L1: A = 1; L1: B = 1;
L2: X = B; L2: Y = A;
Terminally, A = B = 1, X = Y = 0.
Here is a program execution which, if it read ordered, is not
MCWA. Consequently, Rule 1 does not imply Rule 3.
Initially, A = B = X = Y = 0.
T0 T1 T2
L1: A = 1; L1: B = A; L1: X = B;
L2: Y = A;
Terminally, A = B = X = 1, Y = 0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
