GC Destruction Order

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On 5/19/15 5:07 PM, bitwise wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2015 15:36:21 -0400, rsw0x <anonymous at anonymous.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 at 18:37:31 UTC, bitwise wrote:
>>> On Tue, 19 May 2015 14:19:30 -0400, Adam D. Ruppe
>>> <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, 19 May 2015 at 18:15:06 UTC, bitwise wrote:
>>>>> Is this also true for D?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. The GC considers all the unreferenced memory dead at the same
>>>> time and may clean up the class and its members in any order.
>>>
>>> Ugh... I was really hoping D had something better up it's sleeve.
>>
>> It actually does, check out RefCounted!T and Unique!T in std.typecons.
>> They're sort of limited right now but undergoing a major revamp in 2.068.
>
> Any idea what the plans are?. Does RefCounted become thread safe?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong though, but even if RefCounted itself was
> thread-safe, RefCounted objects could still be placed in classes, at
> which point you might as well use a GC'ed class instead, because you'd
> be back to square-one with your destructor racing around on some random
> thread.

With the current GC, yes. RefCounted needs to be thread safe in order to 
use it. But if we change the GC, we could ensure destructors are only 
called in the thread they were created in (simply defer destructors 
until the next GC call in that thread).

> I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about the memory model of D.
>
> The idea of marking absolutely everything in your program with "@nogc"
> just to make it safe is ludicrous.

That makes no sense, the GC is not unsafe.

-Steve