== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer ([email protected])'s article > On Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:51:54 -0400, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote: > > == Quote from Steven Schveighoffer ([email protected])'s article > >> Have you tried synchronizing on an actual object? I remember some time > >> back how Walter proposed removing synchronized as you have written it. > >> Not sure what happened for that. > >> The way you have written the code, assuming that the synchronized > >> statement is doing what you think it's doing, the call to writeln should > >> be completely syncrhonous, so multithreading issues or not, it should > >> work. > >> -Steve > > > > Good idea, still doesn't work. All of the loops just die after a few > > iterations, > > leaving me at 0% CPU usage. This happens on multiple win32 boxes. > > Could someone > > please test this on some other OS? > Latest compiler? D1 D2? > -Steve
2.029. Thanks for your help. I'm just trying to make sure this is a legit bug and maybe understand its underpinnings a little better before I file a bug report, because if it is a legit bug, it's a pretty serious one.
