From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Portable memory barrier? Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 10:24:59 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <0fc56bf7-1cfa-4776-9c47-a573db315c5f@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: vZYCW951TbFitc4GdEwQJg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:46763 Date: 2017-05-11T10:24:59+02:00 List-Id: On 11/05/2017 02:35, Randy Brukardt wrote: > Still, it would be nice to try something in this area. One could imagine > creating an Annex C test that implemented a lock-free algorithm and just > tried to see if it worked properly. The real application used socked communication. The problem I suspect is that artificial tests would not show problems full-size application have. Maybe, a better strategy could be specific low-level tests for atomic objects used in lock-free algorithms. And we really should extend the Annex C with some basic atomic operations like atomic increment, test-then-increment, test-then-exchange etc, all falling back to protected objects if the machine lacks corresponding instructions. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de