Thank you for answers. Let me check if I got this right.
On Monday, June 10, 2013 13:23:26 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
shared was supposed to infer memory barriers, but AFAIK, it
doesn't do
that. Not sure it ever will.
So, my first impression about what shared should do (no low-level
races at all) was correct, but the things didn't work out that
way. So that kind of doesn't solve the issue with low-level
races, which IIRC Andrei considers the biggest crime a language
type system can commit. And the likely (brand-new) solution to
that is
On Monday, 10 June 2013 at 14:49:27 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Now there was a discussion on it recently which indicates that
shared data might lose it's built-in ops to prevent confusion
and require folks to just use core.atomic directly for
lock-free or alternatively cast+mutex for lock-based.
which seems reasonable too.
So, is my understanding correct? If yes, why the path with memory
barriers was "announced", but not taken?
