On Monday, 7 October 2013 at 05:26:10 UTC, Nicholas Smith wrote:
Thanks Jonathon, these are the kinds of warnings I was looking
for.
There are _no_ guarantees of atomicity with shared. Yes, on
some
architectures, writing a word size might be atomic, but the
language
guarantees no such thing.
I was looking narrowly at x86, which I *think* such a statement
is safe to say for. But you're absolutely right that I should
probably safeguard against the possibility that something could
go wrong there.
either that or
you have to mess around with core.atomic, which is the kind of
code that is
_very_ easy to screw up, so it's generally advised not to
bother with
core.atomic unless you actually _need_ to.
It will at least ensure sequential consistency, atomic
load/store, and atomic operations (via atomicOp), will it not?
It will ensure whatever you tell it to. It's a set of convenience
wrappers around some assembly instructions.
