Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/14/12 9:15 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
> 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«.

Compiler intrinsics ====== built into the language.

Andrei