On Saturday, December 03, 2011 20:22:40 David Nadlinger wrote: > On 12/3/11 8:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > Sure, if you use anything other > > than an atomic operation on a shared object and don't use a synchronized > > block or a mutex or the like, you risk race conditions, but if every > > operation on a shared object had to actually be atomic, you couldn't do > > much of anything to them. > > Isn't that exactly the point? What are the guarantees of shared > otherwise? I agree that the current behavior is counter-intuitive and > bug-prone.
I believe that it disallows the compiler from reordering operations on some level, and the big thing of course is that it means that the object isn't thread-local and _can_ be read by multiple threads. I haven't read TDPL's section on shared in a while though, and I almost never use it, so there could be something that I'm missing. - Jonathan M Davis
