Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[Sean Kelly]

On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 11/14/12 1:09 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Yes. And also, I agree that having something typed as "shared" must
>> prevent the compiler from reordering them. But that's separate from
>> inserting memory barriers.
> 
> It's the same issue at hand: ordering properly and inserting barriers are two ways to ensure one single goal, sequential consistency. Same thing.

Sequential consistency is great and all, but it doesn't render concurrent code correct.  At worst, it provides a false sense of security that somehow it does accomplish this, and people end up actually using it as such.