On Saturday, 26 October 2013 at 11:43:02 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Am Fri, 25 Oct 2013 21:16:29 +0200
schrieb "Timo Sintonen" <t.sinto...@luukku.com>:
On Friday, 25 October 2013 at 18:12:40 UTC, Johannes Pfau
wrote:
> What's wrong with the solution Iain mentioned, i.e the way
> shared
> is implemented in GDC?
>
>
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bifrvifzrhgocreje...@forum.dlang.org?page=4#post-mailman.2475.1382646532.1719.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
>
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bifrvifzrhgocreje...@forum.dlang.org?page=4#post-mailman.2480.1382655175.1719.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
There is nothing wrong if it works.
When I last time discussed about this with you and Iain, I do
not remember if this was mentioned. I have been on belief that
gdc has no solution.
Yes, this was news to me as well.
The second thing is, as I mentioned, that register access is
such an important feature in system language that it should be
in language specs.
A quick search did not bring any documentation about shared in
general and how gdc version is different. TDPL mentions only
that shared guarantees the order of operations but does not
mention anything about volatility.
Can anybody point to any documentation?
Well to be honest I don't think there's any kind of spec
related to
shared. This is still a very unspecified / fragile part of the
language.
(I totally agree though that it should be specified)
Seems to work. I can make every member as shared or the whole
struct. Not yet tested how it works with property functions or
when there are tables or structs as members, but now I get
forward in my work.
A little bit sad that the honored leader of the language still
thinks that the right way to go is what we did with Commodore
64...
