At least the code looks complete. It's a shame it uses inline asm though. Would be much nicer to implement via intrinsics.
On 23 May 2013 10:17, Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:58:34 -0400, Dmitry Olshansky < > [email protected]> wrote: > > 07-May-2013 17:25, Andrei Alexandrescu пишет: >> > > No. A tutorial on memory consistency models would be too long to insert >>> here. I don't know of a good online resource, does anyone? >>> >>> >> Sutter's Mill is a good starting point even though it's C++ biased. >> >> Two recent insightful talks on C++11 memory model with down and dirty >> details: >> >> http://herbsutter.com/2013/02/**11/atomic-weapons-the-c-** >> memory-model-and-modern-**hardware/<http://herbsutter.com/2013/02/11/atomic-weapons-the-c-memory-model-and-modern-hardware/> >> > > I finally got around to watching this. Absolutely mind-blowing, and a > very very good talk. This is what I would point people at, although it is > a bit long (and necessarily so). Didn't seem like it took 3 hours :) > > I take back all my arguments regarding the previous discussion, they were > all wrong, along with my concept of the "issues" with out-of-order > reads/writes. I really like how Herb explains that it doesn't really > matter where the re-ordering happens, to the coder, it's all the same (as > if the source code is reordered), and how you can't ever really reason > about code if it has races. > > Is D prepared to do (or does it do?) the same things that C/C++11 does > with atomics? It seems it is a necessity. The docs on core.atomic are, > well, actually missing: > http://dlang.org/phobos/core_**atomic.html<http://dlang.org/phobos/core_atomic.html> > > -Steve >
