Matthew Woehlke writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Matthew Woehlke writes: > > > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > > Michael Eager writes: > > > >> It can also be used to share data between threads, but it becomes > > > >> problematic if accesses are not atomic. It's reasonable to use a > > > >> shared volatile sig_atomic_t to communicate between threads, to say > > > >> "I'm done" or "Start processing". > > > > > > > > Is that really safe, though? There's nothing to stop the machine from > > > > reordering memory writes, even if the compiler doesn't. > > > > > > ...my understanding is that is exactly what 'fence' is for. > > > > That's my understanding too. Here, we're really talking about non-x86 > > processors which have much weaker ordering guarantees. > > On non-x86 processors I actually resort to pthread mutexes :-) (at least > until/unless I have inline assembly implementations for those...) > > So far no one has successfully answered my original question; how do I > suppress these dang warnings? :-) I did. Maybe you didn't see it, or maybe you didn't like the suggestion. Andrew.
