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@acm.org> wrote:

Please make sure that you are subscribed to sg5@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@acm.org> 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@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tm-languages@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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tm-languages@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/CAHFPyjCXGjbuqVv%3DsicLyCRovcHwwpB-w6JcV%2ByLP9TrGG3PUA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.