On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:30:00AM +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote: > No, my test indicates that the memory is not *the same* in the two > processes. If "shared memory" is something which is the same only > occasionally, then that is what I have now.
I don't have your original message with the code at hand here, so this may be a false alarm. Did you think of making all pointers into shared memory volatile ? IIRC you are testing on a counter that is incremented by another process - such a small memory access could easily be optimised away. -- FA
