Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types

From	Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com>
Newsgroups	comp.unix.programmer
Subject	Re: threads, signals, and atomicity of basic types
Date	2011-06-07 12:55 +0100
Message-ID	<871uz5zwhs.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <87vcwpmd3i.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <is8q5n$81a$1@dont-email.me> <a2202888-0292-42b4-a374-1f0223bb29d0@s16g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <87oc2cs2x6.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <e2e8d17b-03a8-4f86-a3a7-ff78b75430e2@35g2000prp.googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> writes:
> On Jun 5, 8:39 am, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
>> It's not. Declaring that an object is 'volatile' is supposed to
>> inform an ANSI/ISO C compiler that 'accessing the object' (as opposed
>> to 'modifiying the object') should be regarded as a side effect
>
> Nobody has ever explained what this means.

I suggest that you get yourself a copy of the C standard and start
looking for operators whose semantics imply that they can be used to
'access objects' without modifiying them. After all, if the C standard
use the term 'accessing an object', it can only refer to some
operation which is part of the C language. This would be the
[]-operator and the *-operator when not being used as lvalues and
possibly, the &-operator. Also, what precisely constitutes an 'access
to an object with a volatile-qualified type' is implementation
defined behaviour. This means it is 'unspecified behaviour' (the C
standard 'provides two or more possibilities and imposes no further
requirements on which is chosen in any instance') and 'each
implementation documentes how the choice is made'.

Consequently, you statement above is roughly equivalent to "I haven't
ever bothered to consult the relevant documentation".

>> IOW, that the 'access procedure' is not idempotent, despite this cannot be
>> concluded by inspecting the code which is executed between two such
>> accesses itself.
>
> Nobody has ever explained what this means either. It's supposed to
> mean that the access is visible somewhere, but nobody knows what that
> somewhere is.

I suspect you are playing dumb on purpose, because you also simply
don't want to let go of the erroneous notation that 'volatile' is
somehow related to 'threading'. It isn't, although 'threading' is one
of the cases where volatile is theoretically necessary (because the
existence of multiple threads implies that 'object accesses' are not
necessarily idempotent, similar to the way they are already not
necessarily idempotent because of effects of signal handlers).

The 'visibility' you mention above is an attribute of some particular
'memory model' and since the C standard does not define a memory
model, it can talk about attributes of memory models, either.

Thread

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

csiph-web