15 Jul
2003
15 Jul
'03
7:32 a.m.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 11:30:00AM +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
No, my test indicates that the memory is not *the
same* in the two
processes. If "shared memory" is something which is the same only
occasionally, then that is what I have now.
I don't have your original message with the code at hand here, so
this may be a false alarm. Did you think of making all pointers
into shared memory volatile ? IIRC you are testing on a counter
that is incremented by another process - such a small memory access
could easily be optimised away.
--
FA