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 <> 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 view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to