[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.11.1503030135000.19651@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 01:40:37 +0300 (MSK)
From: Alexander Monakov <amonakov@...ras.ru>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: semaphore redesign
On Sun, 1 Mar 2015, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> sorry
>
> the code is ok (applications cannot rely on the barrier in case of
> failure), it can lead to surprising results if the application
> uses relaxed atomics, but it's not a conformance issue
There was some follow up on IRC with the conclusion, as I understood, that
even though the rest of memory may be unsynchronized after returning an error,
the memory holding the semaphore itself needs to be synchronized (otherwise
the decision to return an error might have been based on stale memory).
Does sem_getvalue need to synchronize memory as well? I think it should, but
current implementation does not.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
