Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #673 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-31 21:07 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-06-07 14:55 -0700 |
| Articles | 2 on this page of 102 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.unix.programmer
threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Urs Thuermann <urs@isnogud.escape.de> - 2011-05-31 21:07 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-05-31 22:44 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-01 11:58 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-06-01 14:15 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2011-06-02 13:49 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 13:40 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-05-31 22:50 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-05-31 21:32 -0400
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-01 12:35 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-01 23:01 -0400
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 11:22 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 07:52 -0400
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 13:38 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 21:27 -0400
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-01 12:55 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-01 22:54 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Alex Fraser <me@privacy.net> - 2011-06-02 21:00 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-04 21:53 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-05 16:39 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-06 18:48 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-07 06:50 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-07 06:04 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-07 22:48 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 23:18 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types gordonb.lhpq6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-07 18:28 -0500
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-08 11:09 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 14:32 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-09 18:10 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-10 15:26 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types James Waldby <not@valid.invalid> - 2011-06-10 16:49 +0000
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-10 19:07 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-10 13:13 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 12:55 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-07 06:02 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 16:05 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 13:37 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-14 21:43 +0000
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 03:07 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 10:22 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-06-15 09:40 +0000
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 13:20 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Casper H.S. Dik <Casper.Dik@OrSPaMcle.COM> - 2011-06-15 13:19 +0000
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 17:41 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-15 20:20 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-15 17:31 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 18:31 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 13:32 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 22:19 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-16 05:02 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-14 23:23 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-15 10:12 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-15 02:53 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-08 10:19 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-10 16:50 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-15 20:24 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-16 22:11 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-17 04:43 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-19 01:43 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-19 13:35 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 17:06 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-20 16:22 +0000
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-20 19:16 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-21 17:30 +0000
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-21 13:02 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-20 14:32 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-06-21 17:05 +0000
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-19 17:01 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-22 01:55 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-22 03:36 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-02 21:53 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> - 2011-06-03 04:24 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-03 07:52 -0400
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-02 00:23 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 20:11 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-02 22:54 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:03 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-03 02:49 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 17:54 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-06-02 21:36 -0400
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-03 16:25 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-03 03:12 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-06-02 00:45 +0200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 11:26 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Alex Fraser <me@privacy.net> - 2011-06-02 21:05 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-01 20:21 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 11:31 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 09:12 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-02 17:54 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-02 14:00 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-03 15:19 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-03 15:50 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-05 16:46 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-05 15:28 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-06 13:35 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 09:19 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 09:26 -0700
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-07 09:43 +1200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-07 13:29 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-08 09:04 +1200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2011-06-08 12:34 +0100
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-09 07:37 +1200
Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 14:55 -0700
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-09 07:37 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <95a1c9FrnrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #769 |
On 06/ 8/11 11:34 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> On 06/ 8/11 12:29 AM, Rainer Weikusat wrote: >>> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>>> On 06/ 7/11 12:35 AM, Rainer Weikusat wrote: >>>>> And despite your stubborn refusal to let go of the 'volatile-threading >>>>> urban myth', volatile still isn't related to 'threading' at all and >>>>> was never meant to be: It is supposed to inform a ANSI/ISO complaint C >>>>> compiler (did I mention that I care about as little for C++ compilers >>>>> as I do for C++ draft standards?) that 'accessing an object' (as >>>>> opposed to modifiying an object) should be regarded as a side effect, >>>>> instead of as idempotent. >>>> >>>> Luckily for the rest of us, the ISO C committee does care about C++ >>>> draft standards: >>>> >>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1508.htm >>> >>> Could you perhaps enlighten me what your posting is supposed to >>> communicate? >> >> That your head in the sand attitude isn't shared but those who are >> shaping the future of C. > > How did you manage to miss > > It is not really surprising that 'interoperability > between future versions of C and future versions of C++' is a concern > for the respective ISO committees. > > ? Because it hadn't been written, was in the reply to my original post! > I don't sit on any standards commitees and consequently, 'draft > standards' are no concern of mine and neither do I use C++ and > consequently, C++-compilers, -standards and especially, draft > standards are also no concern of mine. Believe it or not, there are developers who are interested in the future of their languages. If your work involves threading, you should be interested in the work being done on the soon to be released C++ standard. If you aren't interested the C++ standard, the updates to the C standard should be of interest. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-06-07 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83bfedbd-853d-4891-bfeb-83f60a537f82@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #744 |
On Jun 6, 5:35 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote: > Joshua Maurice <joshuamaur...@gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > > > Please let the volatile-threading urban myth die the ignoble death it > > deserves. > > And despite your stubborn refusal to let go of the 'volatile-threading > urban myth', volatile still isn't related to 'threading' at all and > was never meant to be: It is supposed to inform a ANSI/ISO complaint C > compiler (did I mention that I care about as little for C++ compilers > as I do for C++ draft standards?) that 'accessing an object' (as > opposed to modifiying an object) should be regarded as a side effect, > instead of as idempotent. Above, you have snipped some of my links. Let me reproduce one. http://kernel.org/doc/Documentation/volatile-considered-harmful.txt This is from the Linux kernel documentation, and therein it explains that you should never use volatile for inter-thread communication. Did you read it? In other posts, you've made it clear that you only care about Linux platforms. Is that link insufficient for you? Perhaps you should read the other links as well (reproduced here), with experts and compiler writers saying the same thing. http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2007/11/30/volatile-almost-useless-for-multi-threaded-programming/ http://www.aristeia.com/Papers/DDJ_Jul_Aug_2004_revised.pdf http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2016.html
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | comp.unix.programmer
csiph-web