Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[deadalnix]

Le 14/11/2012 02:39, Walter Bright a écrit :
> On 11/13/2012 4:04 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> That is what java's volatile do. It have several uses cases, including
>> valid
>> double check locking (It has to be noted that this idiom is used
>> incorrectly in
>> druntime ATM,
>
> Please, please file a bug report about this, rather than a vague
> statement here. If there already is one, please post its number.
>

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6607

>
>> So sequentially consistent read/write are usefull.
>
> Sure, I agree with that.
>
>
>> This struct stuff don't make any sense to me. Java, C# and many other
>> language
>> multithread, have everything shared and still are able to have
>> finalizer of some
>> sort.
>
> I understand, though, that they take steps to ensure that the finalizer
> is run in one thread and no other thread still has access to it - i.e.
> it is converted back to a local reference.
>
>> Why couldn't a shared object be destroyed ? Why should it be destroyed
>> in a
>> specific thread as it can only refer shared data because of
>> transitivity ?
>
> How can you destroy an object in one thread when another thread holding
> live references to it? (Well, how can you destroy it without causing
> corruption bugs, that is.)

Why would you destroy something that isn't dead yet ?