On 2012-06-04 18:22:22 +0000, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<schvei...@yahoo.com> said:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:17:45 -0400, Michel Fortin
<michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote:
After trying to make sense of the thread "synchronized
(this[.classinfo]) in druntime and phobos", I had to write my opinion
on all this somewhere that wouldn't be instantly lost in a bazilion of
posts. It turned out into something quite elaborate.
<http://michelf.com/weblog/2012/mutex-synchonization-in-d/>
I like this. But it needs a lot of work.
A few comments:
1. This does not handle shared *at all*. Presumably, there is no
reason to lock unshared data, so this has to be handled somewhere. If
you say "synchronized implies shared", well, then how do you have a
shared int inside an unshared class? My instinct is that all the
methods that need to used synchronized need to be declared shared
(meaning the whole class data is shared). But that sucks, because
what if you have a thread-local instance?
To the type system, the synchronized variable is thread-local with one
restriction: you can only access it inside a synchronized block. So
without the synchronized block you can't read or write to it, and you
can't take its address. Inside the synchronized block, any expression
making use of that variable is tainted by the current scope and must be
pure (weakly). Except if the only result of an expression contains no
indirection (is entirely copied), or is immutable or shared (no
synchronization needed), then the expression does not get tainted and
its result can be sent anywhere.
Note that this taint thing is only done locally inside the synchronized
block: called functions are simply treated as an expression with inputs
and outputs to check whether they are tainted or not.
I have an idea to solve this. Since the mutexes are implicit, we can
declare space for them, but only allocate them when the class instance
is shared (allocated on construction). Then when synchronized goes to
lock them, if they are null, do nothing.
Or they could simply work like the monitors objects currently have.
As I wrote, I think we need support for shared mutexes too (integrated
with const if you will). Ideally, there'd be a way to choose your own
mutex implementations, perhaps with "synchronized(Spinlock) int x".
But what if some data is not marked synchronized?
You might actually want to restrict synchronized variables to shared
classes and shared structs. In that case, variables not marked as
synchronized will be shared and accessible using atomic operations.
I can see why Bartosz had such trouble creating a sharing system in a
simple manner...
:-)
2. As far as determining a mutex to protect multiple items of data,
what about:
synchronized(symbolname) int x, int y;
or
synchronized(symbolname)
{
int x;
int y;
}
where you cannot do synchronized(x) or synchronized(y), and cannot read
or write x or y without doing synchronized(symbolname).
Or we could be less original: use a struct. It's just a minor cosmetic
problem actually.
struct XY { int x, y; }
synchronized XY xy;
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
