On Nov 14, 2012, at 2:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@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.
