On Saturday, December 03, 2011 22:56:41 Timon Gehr wrote: > On 12/03/2011 09:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > 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 > > cast()
Sure, you could cast away shared, but there's something seriously wrong with shared if you have to constantly cast it away in order to use a shared object. - Jonathan M Davis
