Re: A few proposals, this time from the C++ standards committee

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>]

On 3/17/24 19:44, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 06:49:17PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Mar 2024 at 17:42, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On the other hand, there is much more awareness of concurrency in that
>>> group than 20 years ago, so there is hope.
>>
>> Yeah. But when I say "compiler writers don't understand memory
>> ordering", it's not that I think they need to be singled out - pretty
>> much *nobody* understands it.
> 
> Fair enough!
> 
>> Christ, I'm supposed to know it fairly well, and I still get it wrong
>> myself regularly and have to really think about it (and honestly just
>> prefer leaning on a few standard patterns rather than having to think
>> about it too much).
>>
>> So "awareness of concurrency" is one thing, and I agree it's getting
>> much better.
>>
>> Actually getting memory ordering right - even when you are aware of
>> concurrency - is another thing entirely.
> 
> Agreed, myself included.  So we should all use the standard patterns where
> we can, getting ourselves into memory-model trouble when those patterns
> are not cutting it.  And over time, we add to the standard patterns.
> 
> But we are making progress.  Fifty years ago, the consensus was that
> developers could not be trusted to get while-loop conditions right.  ;-)

I was using for loops and do-until loops 50 years ago, but maybe not "while"
loops. Or are you off by 10 years or so?

-- 
#Randy