Re: Help with Atomic_Components and whole array assignment

["DuckE" <nospam_steved94@home.com>]

Thank you.  I have sent a request to the ARG to introduce this
implementation advice.

SteveD

"Robert Dewar" <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9589fj$k66$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
>
> That's irrelevant, since the AARM is not an official document.
> The only way to resolve confusion on this issue is to send a
> comment following the RM procedures, and have the ARG address
> the issue.
>
> I would think that the appropriate approach would be to
> introduce implementation advice, something to the effect
>
> Implementation Advice
> ---------------------
>
> A load or store of an atomic object should, where possible,
> be implemented by a single load or store instruction which
> accesses exactly the bits of the object and no others. The
> implementation should document those instances in which
> it is not possible to follow this advice.
>
> -----------
> The reason this should be IA is that in IA, we are allowed
> to talk about things like load and store instructions, and
> we can intepret a statement like this in a helpful pragmatic
> manner, whereas if it appeared as a formal requirement, it
> would be meaningless (since it contains many undefined terms,
> and would be susecptible to the as-if semanitc interpretation
> which we specifically do NOT want in this case).
>
> I think it is quite reasonable to consider adding some
> IA of this kind. I suspect that most implementations can
> follow this easily enough -- what is missing is documentation
> of when it is not possible.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/