| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The trouble with volatileThe trouble with volatilePosted May 16, 2007 8:38 UTC (Wed) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599)In reply to: The trouble with volatile by mikov Parent article: The trouble with volatile The way I find it easy to think about it or explain it is that volatile does nothing to prevent the CPU reordering memory accesses, not to mention the visibility of memory accesses across different CPUs. Well, more generally, the C and C++ languages themselves do nothing to prevent such problems (unlike Java)--they are blissfully unaware of all concurrency-related issues, and as a consequence, there is nothing you can do about any of it using only language-provided constructs. Some form of assembly-level support is always required. Note that, fundamentally, it's the same problem afflicting the Double-Checked Locking Pattern (C/C++ version). Scott Meyers' (co-authored) 2004 DDJ article describes the issues quite nicely. Greg
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||