Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >We don't need the cancelConnLock if this is done properly (at least,
> >assuming that storing a pointer is atomic, which seems reasonable).
> Are you sure about this?
> Per what docs I have, storing a pointer should always be atomic.
> exchanging two pointers are not, which is why at least win32 provides a
> specific function to do that (InterlockedExchangePointer). 

You can't even assume a pointer write is atomic to all threads if you
have multiple CPUs.  Assume two CPU's.  Even if CPU 1 writes the pointer
atomically, there is no guarantee that the other CPU will see the change
at the same time.  To guarantee it, you need a memory barrier like a
lock/unlock.  Some CPU systems guarantee memory conherency for memory
operations, but some do not.

It is temping to think that if one CPU can write a value atomically then
the other CPU will also see it at the same time, but that isn't

For the hardware issues see:

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to