Hello Rodrigo, Sure you can. However this specific test does not reproduce the error in iOS most of the time. I will send another one that has more repetitions (and wraps-around the array).
I should file the bug, right? Best, On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Rodrigo Kumpera <kump...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Petros, > > It does look like a bug in our end. We do enforce ECMA's load-acquire, > store-release semantics for volatiles. > > Can we integrate your test case into mono? > > > -- > Rodrigo > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Petros Douvantzis <petrak...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello Miguel, >> >> The initial code does *not *have the field marked as volatile. However, >> it may work in Net 2.0 because it has stronger memory guarantees than the >> ECMA. >> >> So, the articles continues saying "*Making the instance variable >> volatile can make it work*". So, *if* the field were volatile, it would >> work in every ECMA implementation. >> >> Also, I tried using: >> adb shell setprop debug.mono.env "'MONO_ENV_OPTIONS=-O=-intrins'" >> with no difference in the outcome. >> >> Best, >> >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@microsoft.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello Petros, >>> >>> >>> >>> That blog post on double-check-locking explicitly states that without >>> extra steps the pattern would not work. Maybe I missed something? >>> >>> >>> >>> From that post: >>> >>> · Without any memory barriers, it's broken in the ECMA CLI >>> specification too. It's possible that under the .NET 2.0 memory model >>> (which is stronger than the ECMA spec) it's safe, but I'd rather not rely >>> on those stronger semantics, especially if there's any doubt as to the >>> safety. Making the instance variable volatile can make it work, as >>> would explicit memory barrier calls, although in the latter case even >>> experts can't agree exactly which barriers are required. I tend to try to >>> avoid situations where experts don't agree what's right and what's wrong! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *Petros Douvantzis <petrak...@gmail.com> >>> *Date: *Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 3:54 AM >>> *To: *"mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com" < >>> mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com>, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@microsoft.com >>> > >>> *Cc: *Rodrigo Kumpera <kump...@gmail.com> >>> >>> *Subject: *Re: [Mono-dev] Volatile fields don't enforce acquire - >>> release semantics like Volatile.Read() and Volatile.Write() >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello Miguel, >>> >>> >>> >>> I see your point. Even worse, it's a bit ambiguous of what guarantees >>> does the volatile field make. For example in MSDN >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2fx13ttww7.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=s02wpedE5%2fUhB9yawFzf3QlY51QePjK5rUj1c16Selk%3d> >>> nothing is mentioned about fences or memory re-orders. In that sense, Mono >>> is correct. However, in ECMA 335 they mention acquire-release semantics >>> such as the ones in the Volatile class you mentioned. >>> >>> >>> >>> One this to consider is that if the Volatile field does not have these >>> semantics, then* lazy initialization* that relies on a volatile field >>> and a lock ( double-check locking >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fcsharpindepth.com%2fArticles%2fGeneral%2fSingleton.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=yk%2bj4W775WX%2b82pOGWXA4xyURhfDzV1XSvJle2p3L2w%3d> >>> ) >>> is *broken *in Mono for iOS and Android, because there is a chance that >>> a half created object is viewed by another thread. The way the volatile >>> field is supposed to help, is explained in this post >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2fmagazine%2fjj883956.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Edq89e1H1sGysBYfBQFrb9WUTXczZe0ZlQfh1FQJvJc%3d> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> The only way to make this work right now is using the Volatile class, >>> but most probably someone would expect the volatile field to work. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Miguel de Icaza <mig...@microsoft.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> I am not convinced that this is a bug worth fixing. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think this requires some thinking. While this might have been the >>> intended visible behavior from C#, this predates the extensive use of C# >>> beyond the x86 platform. I believe this is why the Volatile APIs were >>> introduced. >>> >>> >>> >>> Consder the documentation for it: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg712971(v=vs.110).aspx >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2fgg712971(v%3dvs.110).aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=U4RIuTFZa6oqRlI3uSyP2q8by90V0mpKDfgmnqQNUZI%3d> >>> >>> >>> >>> If the language/runtime already provided this support, there would be no >>> need for these volatile methods in the first place. >>> >>> >>> >>> Miguel. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *<mono-devel-list-boun...@lists.ximian.com> on behalf of Rodrigo >>> Kumpera <kump...@gmail.com> >>> *Date: *Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:27 PM >>> *To: *petrakeas <petrak...@gmail.com> >>> *Cc: *"mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com" < >>> mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com> >>> *Subject: *Re: [Mono-dev] Volatile fields don't enforce acquire - >>> release semantics like Volatile.Read() and Volatile.Write() >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, it looks like a bug. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:13 AM, petrakeas <petrak...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> According to C# specification >>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms228593.aspx >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2fms228593.aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=66AJc2tU2gcy4vutTkC%2b4bPl3MxAnAiXd4POGNZ3ivA%3d>> >>> : >>> >>> • A read of a volatile field is called a volatile read. A volatile >>> read has >>> “acquire semantics”; that is, it is guaranteed to occur prior to any >>> references to memory that occur after it in the instruction sequence. >>> • A write of a volatile field is called a volatile write. A >>> volatile write >>> has “release semantics”; that is, it is guaranteed to happen after any >>> memory references prior to the write instruction in the instruction >>> sequence. >>> >>> The spec presents an example >>> <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa645755(v=vs.71).aspx >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmsdn.microsoft.com%2fen-us%2flibrary%2faa645755(v%3dvs.71).aspx&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=cFpmsRLE5a248vj3svbpsmOBouE%2bOxE%2fwDMWjd0YkhU%3d>> >>> where >>> one thread writes "data" on a non volatile variable and "publishes" the >>> result by writing on a volatile variable that acts as a flag. The other >>> thread checks the volatile flag and if set, it accesses the non-volatile >>> variable that is now *guaranteed* to contain the data. >>> >>> It seems that Mono 4.4 (the one used in Xamarin) does not enforce these >>> semantics or in other words does not prevent memory re-ordering in >>> Android >>> and iOS that have relaxed memory models due to their CPU. >>> >>> I have created an a test that reproduces the problem in iOS and Android >>> Program.cs <http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/file/n4668111/Program.cs >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmono.1490590.n4.nabble.com%2ffile%2fn4668111%2fProgram.cs&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=H7V6%2bpq4jV8Kw7QdgZMVJRav%2b1XovSCuIY3PgRFaJrk%3d>> >>> . >>> >>> If the access to the volatile field is replaced by Volatile.Read() and >>> Volatile.Write(), then no-problems occur. It seems that Volatile.Read() >>> and >>> Volatile.Write() implement half fences in Mono, but the volatile keyword >>> does not. >>> >>> Is this a bug? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://mono.1490590.n4.nabble.com/Volatile-fields-don-t-enforce-acquire-release-semantics-like-Volatile-Read-and-Volatile-Write-tp4668111.html >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fmono.1490590.n4.nabble.com%2fVolatile-fields-don-t-enforce-acquire-release-semantics-like-Volatile-Read-and-Volatile-Write-tp4668111.html&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=sqJVi9saxf7EEGpn6Wpf%2bFEeZX5yCpzK4%2b38x670OEw%3d> >>> Sent from the Mono - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mono-devel-list mailing list >>> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com >>> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.ximian.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fmono-devel-list&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cf3c960accdeb43d8500208d3a5c2d9ae%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Sb1mXUpzvfBCP0RJh%2bB2orCGoBH3eV8Z8CY10t1NbC0%3d> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Petros Douvantzis >>> >>> Co-founder >>> >>> Horizon Video Technologies >>> >>> *horizon.camera >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fhorizon.camera&data=01%7c01%7cmiguel%40microsoft.com%7cbdcbcb26fc8744e9b67d08d3a63c01c8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=k%2bCLVnzGEb%2fX6zRRD4SfroHMqrvOcV7WJaGEOt2KYqM%3d>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Petros Douvantzis >> >> Co-founder >> >> Horizon Video Technologies >> >> horizon.camera >> >> > -- Petros Douvantzis Co-founder Horizon Video Technologies horizon.camera
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
