On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:58:05 -0500, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer ([email protected])'s article
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 12:09:11 -0500, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote:
> == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer ([email protected])'s article
>> The issue is that if you append to such an array and it adds more
pages
>> in
>> place, the block length location will move. Since each thread caches
>> its
>> own copy of the block info, one will be wrong and look at array data
>> thinking it's a length field.
>> Even if you surround the appends with a lock, it will still cause
>> problems
>> because of the cache. I'm not sure there's any way to reliably
append
>> to
>> such data from multiple threads.
>> -Steve
>
> Would assumeSafeAppend() do the trick?
>
No, that does not affect your cache. I probably should add a function
to
append without using the cache.
-Steve
How about using std.array.Appender? This looks safe as far as I can
tell, but I
want to make sure there aren't any obscure implementation details that
would
prevent this from working, too.
That should be fine, std.array.Appender does not affect the LRU cache. In
fact, if you try to do normal appending to an array built with Appender,
it will automatically reallocate because the memory does not have the
APPENDABLE bit set (new GC bit I added to avoid misinterpretations).
This is a good solution.
-Steve
