From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2D0BC3F for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:36:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9U2aDTH016137 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:36:14 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA02588 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:36:13 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.181]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9U2aBhJ016124 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:36:12 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp217-99.lns1.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.217.99]) by smtp1.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i9U2a64Y056577; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:06:07 +0930 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] atomicity guarantees for threaded code From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: David Brown Cc: Ker Lutyn , caml-list In-Reply-To: <20041030020723.GA12611@old.davidb.org> References: <20041029163907.36287.qmail@web40611.mail.yahoo.com> <20041029215027.GA9504@old.davidb.org> <1099094075.11063.215.camel@pelican.wigram> <20041030003249.GA11524@old.davidb.org> <1099098448.11063.284.camel@pelican.wigram> <20041030020723.GA12611@old.davidb.org> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1099103766.11063.314.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 30 Oct 2004 12:36:06 +1000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4182FE1E.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 4182FE1B.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 aligned:01 ocaml:01 glebe:01 ...:98 061:98 nsw:01 argument:01 snail:02 2037:02 programming:03 threaded:03 probably:05 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 12:07, David Brown wrote: > I would argue that on a machine with 64-bit addresses, you can assume that > 64-bit, aligned loads and stores will be atomic. You can claim that this is the case a lot of the time. But it isn't guarranteed by ISO C. To actually argue it should be guarranteed you'd need to join WG14 and actually propose it... :) For Ocaml, you could ask Xavier .. > There is just too much > code that wouldn't work. There is lots of code that actually *doesn't* work, so this isn't much of an argument.. :) I do agree I have been pushing the limits of imagination playing Devil's Advocate .. you're probably right. But that isn't a guarrantee. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net