Re: LuaTask needs your help

[Thomas Lauer <thomas.lauer@...>]

David Given <dg@cowlark.com> wrote:
> > I am not sure that this line is indeed a problem. Isn't checking an int
> > an atomic operation? As aTask is declared volatile, it should be
> > re-referenced, so a change during the loop would not be a problem
> > either.
> 
> Ah, but that's not an atomic operation. That line compiles into something like:

You're right, of course. I was fixed on the comparison (which may indeed
be atomic) but the surrounding pointer arithmetic clearly isn't. I'll
have some more fun with fiddling the mutex then.

> Hilarity ensues.

Indeed;-)

-- 
cheers  thomasl

web : http://thomaslauer.com/start