On 11/4/10 2:45 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 14:38:59 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
I think this can be made to work and has good properties, although a
fair amount of details need to be figured out. Please share any
thoughts you may have.
What if a thread no longer exists? Would there be a way to mark such
dtors that need this feature?
Probably a thread that dies (by crashing) will never call its destructors.
I don't know, because it seems to me like
a lot of band-aiding for something that is infrequently used (I've
gotten along fine in D without reference counting for as long as I've
used it).
If you use File, you use reference counting. We do need to define a
policy for copying expensive objects.
You also need to provide a pointer in the object for a linked list for
the work-list.
I think it's enough if the thread has the list, but I may as well be wrong.
I'm thinking I would prefer to have the destructor and finalizer split,
so the 'destructor' can tell whether it's being called synchronously or
from the GC. Then the dtor itself can handle the whole worklist
implementation.
I guess the only extra thing you would need in addition to that is a
hook so memory allocation from a given thread can be hooked to process
the worklist. Or maybe the worklist becomes a standard feature of the
thread class, and you manually add the task from the destructor instead
of the GC doing it for you.
These are all interesting options. At the end of the day, what we want
to guarantee is no races in non-shared objects.
Andrei
