Re: [sigc] Re: [gtkmm] libsigcx and gtkmm 2.4

[Christer Palm <palm nogui se>]

Martin Schulze wrote:
> This gives rise to an interesting question: If no locking is required  
> (e.g. because atomic operations are used), which is the most efficient  
> call to establish a memory barrier (e.g. before doing the atomic  
> operation)? In a linux driver, I would call wmb(), but what can I do on  
> the application side? Signal a dummy condition?

I'm pretty sure there isn't a portable way of doing that without 
locking. Even if threads agree on memory contents at the actual point of 
syncronization, they will not stay syncronized for long. The atomic 
operation needs to run within the scope of syncronization, and the 
mechanism to implement that is architecture dependent.

It shouldn't really matter, though, as there's no portable way of 
issuing an atomic operation either. At least not in C/C++.

--
Christer Palm