On 11/14/12 4:50 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
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.
Yah, but the baseline here is acquire-release which has subtle
differences that are all the more maddening.
Andrei
