FeedaMail: Comments for Sutter’s Mill

	Comments for Sutter's Mill
	(Sponsor this newsletter) Comment on Reader Q&A: Acquire/release and sequential consistency by Herb Sutter @Fernando: C++98 didn’t cover this case because there was no notion of threads or other concurrency in the standard. Implementations generally did the right thing. Then when the standard introduced concurrency it also had to specify a memory model for concurrency. Read More » Comment on Reader Q&A: Acquire/release and sequential consistency by Fernando Pelliccioni Herb, thanks for your answer. This means that in C++98 we are also protected against such cases? I think that the code is correct because ‘disjoint stacks’ even in pre-C++11. (Leaving out ‘escape analysis and constant propagation’) Why is mentioned as something fixed in C++11 Memory Model? I remember an Effective Concurrency article ( I don’t remember exactly which ) which deals with the same subject, is it possible? Read More » Comment on GotW #7a Solution: Minimizing Compile-Time Dependencies, Part 1 by Herb Sutter Catching up… @Sebastian: I cover those in the other parts, but you’re right it would be easier to add a short note here. Done. @bcs: The point, which I’ve now clarified, is that the caller can’t even invoke E h(E) unless he already has an E object — so he already has its definition. @Emmanuel: As above, I’ve improved the text to distinguish between parameter and return types. Thanks for the comments. Read More »
	(Sponsor this newsletter)
	Delievered to you by Feedamail. Unsubscribe