On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:50:36 PM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:46 AM, T L wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor
>>
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:50:36 PM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:46 AM, T L
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:46 AM, T L wrote:
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote:
>>
Or maybe it works the other way? Because sync/atomic is covered then by
accidental extension so is unsafe.
tors 8 sep. 2016 kl 15:00 skrev Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM T L wrote:
>
> > Aren't the parameters of atomic.Load/Store/SwapPointer
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM T L wrote:
> Aren't the parameters of atomic.Load/Store/SwapPointer functions
(*)unsafe.Pointer?
Yes, they are. Using any package API that involves unsafe.Pointer implies
your program must "import unsafe" to use it. And that means your program
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:00:33 PM UTC+8, Jakob Borg wrote:
>
> tors 8 sep. 2016 kl 12:46 skrev T L :
>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you could explain what kind of compatibility risk you are
tors 8 sep. 2016 kl 12:46 skrev T L :
>
> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you could explain what kind of compatibility risk you are
>> concerned about that is not covered by the Go 1 compatibility
>> guarantee.
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L wrote:
>>
>> https://golang.org/doc/go1compat
>>
>
> Then how to write compatibility safe atomic
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L
> wrote:
>
> https://golang.org/doc/go1compat
>
>
Then how to write compatibility safe atomic pointer reads/writes code? Do I
must use atomic.Value for pointers?
.
--
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 golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L wrote:
https://golang.org/doc/go1compat
--
-j
--
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
On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L
> wrote:
>
> https://golang.org/doc/go1compat
>
yes, risk exists?
>
> --
>
> -j
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
13 matches
Mail list logo