No. Because in the absence on a memory barrier the writes may not be flushed meaning you cannot reason about any value ever being changed. atomics provide the memory barrier, but the mm still does not specify a “happens before” relationship (but without this they are fairly useless).
> On Nov 9, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Lars Seipel <lars.sei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 06:06:22AM -0600, Robert Engels wrote: >> I think that is a bit unclear - even if they access different elements, if >> they ever access the same element even at different times , you need >> synchronization- it’s not only if the access the same element “concurrently”. > > No, that seems wrong. If, for any two distinct accesses A and B, either A > happens before B or B happens before A (i.e. there is no concurrent access), > what would you need additional synchronization for? Access is already > serialized. > > -ls -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/22528E12-CFE8-450E-876E-DB19C9B975C3%40ix.netcom.com.