15 Oct
2004
15 Oct
'04
2:12 p.m.
Schalk_Cronje@McAfee.com wrote:
Do you really have a volatile member function somewhere? I thought that they were "officially" worthless.
Well, that is a different matter. If one might want to follow Andrei's suggestion of using volatile to encapsulate synchronisation then they are still worthwhile. (CUJ February 2001).
I wouldn't go that way. After the great flame wars in comp.programming.threads regarding the article, Andrei himself has acknowledged that this might not be the proper way to do sychronization. He's since proposed a better approach. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.asp?p=25298