On 5/29/22 13:47, Christian Köstlin wrote:
> Our discussion with using TLS for the
> collectors proposed to not need any lock on the add method for
> collector, because its thread local and with that thread safe?
It would be great that way but then the client changed the requirements
on us:
On 5/27/22 06:55, Christian Köstlin wrote:
> I wonder how I can synchronize the "dumping" and the
> collection of the threads. Would be cool to have an efficient lockless
> implementation of appender ...
That turned out to be nontrivial.
The following is a draft I played with. Collector
On 2022-05-29 20:52, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 5/27/22 06:55, Christian Köstlin wrote:
> I wonder how I can synchronize the "dumping" and the
> collection of the threads. Would be cool to have an efficient lockless
> implementation of appender ...
That turned out to be nontrivial.
The
On 2022-05-29 20:52, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 5/27/22 06:55, Christian Köstlin wrote:
> I wonder how I can synchronize the "dumping" and the
> collection of the threads. Would be cool to have an efficient lockless
> implementation of appender ...
That turned out to be nontrivial.
The
On 5/29/22 13:53, Christian Köstlin wrote:
> According to
>
https://www.schveiguy.com/blog/2022/05/comparing-exceptions-and-errors-in-d/
> its bad to catch Errors ...
Correct in the sense that the program should not continue after catching
Error.
> so dowork should catch only Exception?
On Sunday, 29 May 2022 at 01:35:23 UTC, frame wrote:
Is there a compiler switch to catch this kind of error?
```d
ulong v = 1;
writeln(v > -1);
```
IMHO the compiler should bail a warning if it sees a logic
comparison between signed and unsigned / different integer
sizes. There is 50% chance
