Wed Oct 14 12:49:45 EDT 2015
Malcolm Cohen wrote:
> This is not so. The first sentence of 8.2 of the TS says "An atomic
> subroutine is an intrinsic subroutine that performs an action on its
> ATOM argument or the count of its EVENT argument atomically."
> And the rest of the description of what an atomic subroutine does simply
> does not work with EVENT_QUERY ***AT ALL***. The description of the atomics
> has moved on since 2010.
> Just read the Atomic subroutines section in the standard. It is rather
> obviously completely inapplicable to how EVENT_QUERY works. Sprinkling "or
> EVENT argument" and "or execution of EVENT POST statements" throughout that
> subclause would make it work, but the end result would be significantly
> harder to understand than just describing how EVENT_QUERY works (it has NO
> interaction with the other atomic subroutines!!!) separately.
>> I have to disagree here. Changing an atomic subroutine to be nonatomic
>> is surely a big change.
> Describing it correctly is not a change at all.
>> It is like making ATOMIC_REF nonatomic.
> No it is not.
> There are some changes needed to 244 (at least I think it needs to say it
> operates atomically w.r.t. EVENT POST), but blathering on about how we are
> destroying the TS is not shedding any light on the matter.
Yes, words saying that it operates atomically w.r.t. EVENT POST and
EVENT WAIT would meet my objection.
More information about the J3