Hi Hans,

I won't be able to make a call tomorrow. I'm travelling on the 3rd of
June, but might still be able to make the call. June 10th I will
definitely be available.

- Mike

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:24 AM Hans Boehm <boehm_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Please make sure that you are subscribed to sg5_at_lists.isocpp.org. In case
> you missed it, we switched mailing lists!
>
> We failed to get a quorum on April 29. The next meeting is currently
> scheduled for Monday, May 27, Memorial Day in the US. I doubt we will get a
> quorum then either.
>
> Can we delay this meeting (only) by a week, and try for June 3? If you're
> a regular attendee, please let me know if you can or cannot make a meeting
> on the 3rd, at the usual time.
>
> Hans
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 9:00 PM Hans Boehm <boehm_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>>
>> We are meeting tomorrow April 29th at noon PDT, usual coordinates:
>>
>> Join Hangouts Meet
>> meet.google.com/sbj-cvgh-vnd
>> Join by phone
>> ‪+1 208-925-0196‬ PIN: ‪255 542‬#
>>
>> The topic will continue to be the TM-lite proposal.
>>
>> Notes from March 25:
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> Attendees: Jade Alglave, Hans Boehm, Michael Scott, Michael Spear, Victor
>> Luchangco
>>
>> Discussed Victor's additions to
>>
>> M Spear: Synchronized instead?
>>
>> Victor: No, want atomic block.
>>
>> M Spear: Want to be able to use STL, e.g. map in transaction.
>>
>> Hans: trade-off, non constexpr makes it implementation defined
>>
>> Victor: Want nested transactions
>>
>> M Spear: Should allow proper software engineering in transactions.
>>
>> Victor: Should look at what's really allowed in constexpr.
>>
>> M Spear: Want everything visible in translation unit to be allowed.
>>
>> Hans : trade-off against portability. Constexpr growing.
>>
>> M Spear: Not for simplifying implementation. Single global lock always
>> works.
>>
>> All: Aim for subset of atomic_noexcept.
>>
>> Do we need to catch transaction-unsafe code that's never executed?
>>
>> Hans: Previously decided on undefined behavior when executing
>> transaction-unsafe code.
>>
>> M Scott: Is SGL with no checks conforming?
>>
>> Allow either detection or simple SGL?
>>
>> M Spear: Real challenge is getting users. This is simpler than existing
>> implementations.
>>
>> M Scott: 2 possible implementations:
>> HTM-centric plus diagnosis
>> SGL with no diagnosis
>>
>> M Scott: Should warn, but not for atomics
>>
>> M Spear: Should prohibit volatile, atomics, inline assembly
>>
>> Victor: What about IO?
>>
>> M Scott: Don't want to require diagnosis for unexecuted code.
>>
>> Jade: Lock-free?
>>
>> Victor: Want to allow SGL for now
>>
>> Meet next time as scheduled, on April 29.
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TM & Languages" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tm-languages+unsubscribe_at_googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to tm-languages_at_googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tm-languages.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tm-languages/CAPUmR1adjFD6n5MtSmz2L_3qzC8kwePTD-tBLYqZLC5eaWTP2Q%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tm-languages/CAPUmR1adjFD6n5MtSmz2L_3qzC8kwePTD-tBLYqZLC5eaWTP2Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>