Am Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:16:29 +0200 schrieb "Timo Sintonen" <[email protected]>:
> On Friday, 25 October 2013 at 18:12:40 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > What's wrong with the solution Iain mentioned, i.e the way > > shared > > is implemented in GDC? > > > > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]?page=4#post-mailman.2475.1382646532.1719.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com > > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]?page=4#post-mailman.2480.1382655175.1719.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com > > There is nothing wrong if it works. > When I last time discussed about this with you and Iain, I do not > remember if this was mentioned. I have been on belief that gdc > has no solution. Yes, this was news to me as well. > > The second thing is, as I mentioned, that register access is such > an important feature in system language that it should be in > language specs. > > A quick search did not bring any documentation about shared in > general and how gdc version is different. TDPL mentions only that > shared guarantees the order of operations but does not mention > anything about volatility. > Can anybody point to any documentation? Well to be honest I don't think there's any kind of spec related to shared. This is still a very unspecified / fragile part of the language. (I totally agree though that it should be specified)
