Re: Portable memory barrier?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Jere" <jhb.chat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a0357a77-39dd-4e24-8580-a71a9ca79531@googlegroups.com...
...
> I played around with it a bit more.  I feel like the RM is very piece-meal 
> with
> how it defines things.  I have to find a bunch of different sections to 
> piece
> together a full picture on how something is defined.  Not that it is wrong 
> in
> any sense, but it definitely makes it challenging for someone who doesn't 
> yet
> "know" the standard.  I'll get there in time.  Still it's helpful that the 
> RM is
> in html format with links, though sometimes there are places lacking links 
> to
> definitions (again, to things that once you "know" the standard make 
> sense, but
> for someone new it can be a bit deep to wade through, especially if you 
> are used
> to different terminology from other language standards).

We intend that every defined term appear in the index, so I'd look there if 
all else fails. (Certainly before starting a search.) The real danger point 
is things (like "part") that are technical terms but don't seem like it.

BTW, Atomic/Volatile are messy as they're defined in a specialized needs 
annex, so part of the definition is in the core language and part in the 
annex. (It's hard to imagine an Ada compiler not implementing most of annex 
C, though - I don't think than Atomic/Volatile should have been there but it 
would be messy to change.)

                                 Randy.