On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 02:42:16 +0100, Martin Nowak d...@dawgfoto.de wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:13:57 +0100, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2011-10-31 17:07:31 +, Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org said:
writeThis really shouldn't be const, it should be shared. The
I've been looking into cas recently and I came to wonder why it doesn't
provide actual support for pointers.
The current declaration of cas looks roughly like this:
bool cas(shared(T)* here, const V1 ifThis, const V2 writeThis) if
(__traits(compiles,mixin(*here = writeThis)))
which, with
writeThis really shouldn't be const, it should be shared. The problem was that
making writeThis a shared pass by value param implied a synchronized load for
writeThis, which is undesirable for cas. So I left the declaration of cas as
specified in TDPL and thought I'd figure this out later.
On 2011-10-31 17:07:31 +, Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org said:
writeThis really shouldn't be const, it should be shared. The problem was t
hat making writeThis a shared pass by value param implied a synchronized loa
d for writeThis, which is undesirable for cas. So I left the
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:13:57 +0100, Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com wrote:
On 2011-10-31 17:07:31 +, Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org said:
writeThis really shouldn't be const, it should be shared. The problem
was t
hat making writeThis a shared pass by value param implied a
On 10/31/2011 10:13 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-10-31 17:07:31 +, Sean Kelly s...@invisibleduck.org said:
writeThis really shouldn't be const, it should be shared. The problem
was t
hat making writeThis a shared pass by value param implied a
synchronized loa
d for writeThis, which is
