Alexander Terekhov <yyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It indends to specify that conforming applications must be
> <XRAT-quote> data race-free </XRAT-quote>. It's all in the
> Rationale. Application programmers must <XRAT-quote> use
> synchronization primitives correctly to ensure that
> modifications to a location in memory are ordered with
> respect to modifications and/or access to the same location
> in other threads. Access to read-only data need not be
> synchronized. The resulting program is said to be data
> race-free. </XRAT-quote>
Well, there are two problems with that. Firstly, the Rationale is
informative, and people writing robust or portable code or good
implementations need to know what is required (i.e. normative).
But, more importantly, all that does is to add to the ambiguity.
Let's ignore the problem that there are several possible ways in
which that can be interpreted, and assume it is ambiguous. How
do application programmers use those primitives to do that, when
there is no precise specification of what the primitives do?
Regards,
Nick Maclaren,
University of Cambridge Computing Service,
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QH, England.
Email: yyyy@xxxxxxxxx
Tel.: +44 1223 334761 Fax: +44 1223 334679
|