On 11/13/12 11:37 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-11-13 23:22, Walter Bright wrote:
But I do see enormous value in shared in that it logically (and rather
forcefully) separates thread-local code from multi-thread code. For
example, see the post here about adding a destructor to a shared struct,
and having it fail to compile. The complaint was along the lines of
shared being broken, whereas I viewed it along the lines of shared
pointing out a logic problem in the code - what does destroying a struct
accessible from multiple threads mean? I think it must be clear that
destroying an object can only happen in one thread, i.e. the object must
become thread local in order to be destroyed.
If the compiler should/does not add memory barriers, then is there a
reason for having it built into the language? Can a library solution be
enough?
The compiler must be in this so as to not do certain reorderings.
Andrei
