Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?

[Erik Trulsson]

On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 06:06:17PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 28 October 2007 17:39, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 01:10:00PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> >> Erik Trulsson wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Unfortunately it seems that the POSIX standard for threads say that as
> >>> long as access to a shared variable is protected by a mutex there is no
> >>> need to use 'volatile'.
> >> 
> >> How does it say this, in some semantically precise way, or with hand
> >> waving as in this sentence.
> > 
> > I don't know.  I don't have access to the POSIX standard itself so I have
> > to depend on other peoples description of what POSIX says. (Thus my use of
> > 'seems' above.)
> > Everything I have found seem to agree that POSIX does not require the use of
> > volatile though.
> 
>   As far as I know, there is no separate 'pthreads' spec apart from what is
> defined in the Threads section (2.9) of the SUS (http://tinyurl.com/2wdq2u)
> and what it says about the various pthread_ functions in the system interfaces
> (http://tinyurl.com/2r7c5k) chapter.  None of that, as far as I have been able
> to determine, makes any kind of claims about access to shared state or the use
> of volatile.

Having just been pointed to that copy of the SUS, I must agree.  I can't
find anything in there saying anything at all about what is required to
safely share data between threads.  If that is really so it seems 'pthreads'
are even more under-specified than I thought (and I had fairly low
expectations in that regard.)
I really hope there is something I have missed.



-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se