Non-atomic ops allowed on shared variables?
Jonathan M Davis
jmdavisProg at gmx.com
Sat Dec 3 12:49:53 PST 2011
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 21:41:45 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> > That page says that reads and writes are guaranteed to be atomic for
> > shared. It does _not_ say that something like ++threadsCount is
> > guaranteed to be atomic.
> Woops, sorry it was a typo. I meant page 411, not 413. It says it's an
> error there. Btw, I never said ++ was atomic, I've asked whether
> something has changed. IOW I thought perhaps this used to be an error
> but maybe it was changed to make increment/decrement to be atomic on
> shared variables. That's not the case of course..
Ah, okay. I had completely forgotten about that. That seems _very_ restrictive
to me, and for it to work correctly, I would expect the compiler to have to be
smart enough to realize when a synchronized block is in use or a mutex is in
use, and I don't see how it can be that smart across function calls (since if
it isn't that smart, it forces you to use atomicOp even when it's completely
unnecessary), so I don't see how that could possibly work without
unnecessarily requiring you to use atomicOp all over the place.
I have no idea what the plan on this is at this point, and I'm very surprised
that such a requirement was ever suggested. It's the kind of question that you
may have to bring up in the main newsgroup if you want a good answer for it
though, since the number of people who pay attention to d-learn is much lower,
and I don't know if any of the key devs who _would_ know pay attention here.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn