This should be validated by benchmarking. Andrei
On 8/27/10 7:45 PDT, David Simcha wrote:
IIRC (maybe this has changed recently) atomic increments in core.atomic are based on CAS instructions in a while loop, which is how more generic lock free primitives are made. Atomic increment should be special cased to directly use lock; inc [someRegister];. On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Sean Kelly <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Aug 27, 2010, at 7:11 AM, David Simcha wrote: > >> >> I see you have some CAS instructions. Sean, I think it's a good time to collaborate with David to put them into druntime or std.concurrency. > > Yeah, D needs a real atomics library. core.atomic is a good start, but I won't use it until it can efficiently do things like atomic increment. How could it be made more efficient? _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
