Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[David Nadlinger]

On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 14:16:57 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 11/14/12 1:20 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 11/13/2012 11:37 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>> If the compiler should/does not add memory barriers, then is 
>>> there a
>>> reason for
>>> having it built into the language? Can a library solution be 
>>> enough?
>>
>> Memory barriers can certainly be added using library functions.
>
> The compiler must understand the semantics of barriers such as 
> e.g. it doesn't hoist code above an acquire barrier or below a 
> release barrier.

Again, this is true, but it would be a fallacy to conclude that 
compiler-inserted memory barriers for »shared« are required due 
to this (and it is »shared« we are discussing here!).

Simply having compiler intrinsics for atomic loads/stores is 
enough, which is hardly »built into the language«.

David