On Saturday, December 03, 2011 21:41:45 Andrej Mitrovic wrote: > On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: > > That page says that reads and writes are guaranteed to be atomic for > > shared. It does _not_ say that something like ++threadsCount is > > guaranteed to be atomic. > > Woops, sorry it was a typo. I meant page 411, not 413. It says it's an > error there. Btw, I never said ++ was atomic, I've asked whether > something has changed. IOW I thought perhaps this used to be an error > but maybe it was changed to make increment/decrement to be atomic on > shared variables. That's not the case of course..
Ah, okay. I had completely forgotten about that. That seems _very_ restrictive to me, and for it to work correctly, I would expect the compiler to have to be smart enough to realize when a synchronized block is in use or a mutex is in use, and I don't see how it can be that smart across function calls (since if it isn't that smart, it forces you to use atomicOp even when it's completely unnecessary), so I don't see how that could possibly work without unnecessarily requiring you to use atomicOp all over the place. I have no idea what the plan on this is at this point, and I'm very surprised that such a requirement was ever suggested. It's the kind of question that you may have to bring up in the main newsgroup if you want a good answer for it though, since the number of people who pay attention to d-learn is much lower, and I don't know if any of the key devs who _would_ know pay attention here. - Jonathan M Davis
