On 30-04-2012 00:08, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/29/2012 10:59 PM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 29-04-2012 14:26, David Nadlinger wrote:
- Unsigned right shift, but I can see how it can be useful (simply
underused?).
It's clear that arithmetic right shift is what the programmer usually
wants, and yet, we use >> to denote what they don't want. It's
completely counter-intuitive.
So, +1.
'>>' is arithmetic right shift.
Sorry, I managed to get myself confused here. What I meant to say was
that I think >> should do an arithmetic shift if the operands are
signed; unsigned shift otherwise.
- shared: TLS by default is great, but only __gshared is really usable
right now. IMHO, shared had better been reserved for a comprehensive
take on the subject, rather than the half-baked implementation we have
right now.
David
It's clear that shared is biased towards heavily templatized code.
It's not useful in non-templatized code because such code can't accept
both
shared and non-shared values.
Just cast it away if you do eg. locking. There is nothing wrong with it.
Code that operates on both (actually) shared and unshared data should be
uncommon anyway.
The problem is that shared is supposed to insert memory barriers (I know
it doesn't, but that's the goal/idea).
shared looks neat in theory, but is a fallacy in practice.
unshared is what is important. There is no unshared if there is no shared.
I think this statement went over my head...
--
- Alex
