Re: __gshared static
On 4/24/15 1:22 PM, =?UTF-8?B?Ik3DoXJjaW8=?= Martins\ marcio...@gmail.com\ wrote: Hi! I just stumbled across what seems like a misunderstanding on my side about these keywords. Can someone help clarify these for me? ``` __gshared static int foo; __gshared int foo; ``` What are the storage and semantic differences between those two, if any? These are the same, __gshared overrides static. -Steve
Re: __gshared static
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 18:05:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On 4/24/15 1:22 PM, =?UTF-8?B?Ik3DoXJjaW8=?= Martins\ marcio...@gmail.com\ wrote: Hi! I just stumbled across what seems like a misunderstanding on my side about these keywords. Can someone help clarify these for me? ``` __gshared static int foo; __gshared int foo; ``` What are the storage and semantic differences between those two, if any? These are the same, __gshared overrides static. -Steve Thanks Steve!
Re: __gshared static
On 4/24/15 2:47 PM, bearophile wrote: Steven Schveighoffer: These are the same, __gshared overrides static. Isn't forbidding __gshared static a good idea then, to avoid user confusion? Surely, prohibiting non-functioning attributes is good when it's obvious that they do nothing. BUT... there is an issue: static: __gshared int x; Should this be an error? I believe inside the compiler, the reason unused attributes are ignored are because this is handled the same way, and making it error would make all of them error. But that's kind of a guess. -Steve
Re: __gshared static versus static __gshared
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 08:47:21 +, %u wrote: Is this a bug? __gshared static i; makes i be thread-local, while static __gshared i; makes it be shared. If that's the case, then it is definitely a bug. The order of attributes shouldn't matter. -Lars
