On 28/06/11 12:14, Michael Schnell wrote:
A similar discussion is going on in Lazarus-develop, but this obviously
is a compiler question.
In C, there is the volatile keyword that ensures that after the code
sequence enters the next C instruction after that which modified this
variable, another thread sees the correct state of the variable.
This is completely incorrect. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatile_variable
Note this:
"Operations on volatile variables are not atomic, nor do they establish
a proper happens-before relationship for threading. This is according to
the relevant standards (C, C++, POSIX, WIN32), and this is the matter of
fact for the vast majority of current implementations. The volatile
keyword is basically worthless as a portable threading construct."
Henry
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
