On 5/19/13 5:56 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 19 May 2013 at 21:02:57 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 5/19/2013 11:22 AM, deadalnix wrote:
The damn thing should have been initialized in the
first place to avoid the bug.
Sounds like you have the double-checked locking bug. Using a different
value to initialize it won't fix it.
No it sound like initalizing something to null, then initialize it
properly, assume all over the place that it is initialized to something
else, and in some rare code path it blows up.
The fact that this occurs in a multithreaded environment made it super
hard to debug, but the whole thing was properly synchronized.
How was there a bug if everything was properly synchronized? You either
describe the matter with sufficient detail, or acknowledge the
destruction of your anecdote. This is going nowhere.
Andrei
