From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "AMSRL-CI-CN" <gwyn@arl.army.mil>
Message-ID: <Gs90KD.Iuw@arl.army.mil>
References: <d1d1b1fb6844728c522ac30443f2fd89@plan9.bell-labs.com>, <3C7CFAFE.4996DA2A@research.bell-labs.com>, <87u1s2y1uu.fsf@becket.becket.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan or side effect
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:01:37 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5bf70688-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net> wrote in message
news:87u1s2y1uu.fsf@becket.becket.net...
> In the presence of concurrence, even this is not sufficient, because a
> different thread could clobber the value.  However, C does not
> guarantee synchronization in this case unless the variable is marked
> "volatile".

Actually the C standard does not address threads at all.
It is nice that "volatile" helps, but I'm sure it doesn't totally
solve the concurrent data access problem for threads.