This is the mail archive of the gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: SUSv3's "memory location" and threads

From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
To: "Adam Olsen" <rhamph at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 27 Aug 2007 23:52:08 -0700
Subject: Re: SUSv3's "memory location" and threads
References: <aac2c7cb0708272219i2ce775c4r460970da2717f9b5@mail.gmail.com> <m34piki5c2.fsf@dhcp-172-18-118-196.corp.google.com> <aac2c7cb0708272304h41518789h2abf76046fcd2f53@mail.gmail.com>

"Adam Olsen" <rhamph@gmail.com> writes:

> I realize I'm "probably" safe if I ensure adjacent members are at
> least as large as int (or long, or maybe long long, depending), but
> I'm extremely mistrustful of C.  I'm hoping to find a way to be *sure*
> I'm behaving in a correct, portable manor.

Unfortunately there is no such way.  The only way you could be sure in
a portable manner is for the C and/or C++ language standard to define
how multi-threaded code should behave.  But they don't.

The next C++ standard, C++0x is intended to include definitions for
multi-threaded programs.  But it does not exist yet.

Ian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: SUSv3's "memory location" and threads
  - From: Adam Olsen

References:
- SUSv3's "memory location" and threads
  - From: Adam Olsen
- Re: SUSv3's "memory location" and threads
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: SUSv3's "memory location" and threads
  - From: Adam Olsen

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]