Something needs to happen with shared, and soon.

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 11/14/12 4:50 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> 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.

Yah, but the baseline here is acquire-release which has subtle 
differences that are all the more maddening.

Andrei