On 10/17/18 10:33 AM, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 October 2018 at 14:26:43 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 17.10.2018 16:14, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
I was thinking that mutable -> shared const as apposed to mutable ->
shared would get around the issues that Timon posted.
Unfortunately not. For example, the thread with the mutable reference
is not obliged to actually make the changes that are performed on that
reference visible to other threads.
Yes, but that is covered by not being able to read non-atomically from a
shared reference.
All sides must participate in synchronization for it to make sense. The
mutable side has no obligation to use atomics. It can use ++data, and
race conditions will happen.
-Steve
