https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3070
Is this design for the sake of explicitness so the D developer
doesn't unknowingly add dependencies on atomics?
/Per
On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 07:23:25 UTC, Meta wrote:
It is a known bug with an open pull request to fix it.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/3070
Thanks!
On Sunday, 1 June 2014 at 07:06:27 UTC, Chuck Allison wrote:
I was under the impression that calling ++x for a shared x is
an error. Not only do I not get an error, the effect of ++x is
identical to atomicOp"+="(x,1) in the following example (the
variable is count here, not x):
shared int cou
I was under the impression that calling ++x for a shared x is an
error. Not only do I not get an error, the effect of ++x is
identical to atomicOp"+="(x,1) in the following example (the
variable is count here, not x):
shared int count;
void f(string s) {
foreach (i; 0..100)
writef