The "no gc" crowd

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, October 11, 2013 20:04:57 Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Friday, 11 October 2013 at 17:50:26 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> > How can one possibly used "synchronized" for this in absence of
> > classes if desire behavior is to lock an entity, not statement
> > block?
> 
> I'm not sure I follow. But I was in part objecting to the use of
> synchronized without a related object:
> 
> synchronized {
> // do stuff
> }
> 
> This statement should be illegal. You must always specify a
> synchronization context:
> 
> synchronized(myMutex) {
> // do stuff
> }

I agree with that. I was just in too much of a hurry when I threw that code 
snippet together and left out the mutex. I was more concerned with what was in 
the synchronized block than how the lock was done. It could have been done 
with guard/autolock and RAII as far as I was concerned with regards to what I 
was trying to show.

> For the rest, it seemed like the suggestion was that you could
> just wrap a statement in any old synchronized block and all your
> problems would be solved, which absolutely isn't the case.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that all problems would be solved by a 
synchronized block. I was simply trying to show that in order to actually use 
a shared object, you have to cast away shared, and that means protecting the 
object with a lock of some kind. You then have the problem of making sure that 
no thread-local references to the object escape the lock, but at least shared 
then becomes useable.

- Jonathan M Davis