On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > Sorry, but it's *VERY* different. The options you mention will lead to > a consisten run-time failure. > > Getting the atomicity wrong will lead to random failures at runtime that > are almost impossible to track down due the nature of such race > conditions. That's simply intolerable. But our current solution in libatomic: - may deadlock when atomic op is reentered via a signal frame; - doesn't synchronize between distinct processes operating on atomic objects in shared memory; (this can lead to the same failure mode as in your objection btw, it might seem to work >99% of time); - neither limitation appears to be documented in any obvious place. I'd say what we do now is far more inexcusable. Alexander
