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
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 (
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.
rd. Your reply did not acknowledge
nor deny this.
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.
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.
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.
