On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 20:25:44 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
Just noticed that there's no example.
It's used like
shared(ulong) a;
atomicOp!"+="(a, 1);
Wow, that syntax sucks a lot.
a.atomicOp!"+="(1);
sounds better. You can alias it too.
Thanks, that's what I needed to know.
I'm still going to do it as a class, but now only the inc routine needs
to be handled specially.
(The class is so that other places where the value is used don't even
need to know that it's special. And so that instances are easy to share
between threads.
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 20:25:44 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:43:23 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:39:27 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:27:19 UTC, Charles Hixson
wrote:
[...]
https://dlang.org/phobos/core_atomic.html#.a
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:43:23 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:39:27 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:27:19 UTC, Charles Hixson
wrote:
If I define a shared ulong variable, is increment an atomic
operation?
E.g.
shared ulong t;
...
t++;
It seems
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:39:27 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:27:19 UTC, Charles Hixson
wrote:
If I define a shared ulong variable, is increment an atomic
operation?
E.g.
shared ulong t;
...
t++;
It seems as if it ought to be, but it could be split into
read, in
On Sunday, 7 February 2016 at 19:27:19 UTC, Charles Hixson wrote:
If I define a shared ulong variable, is increment an atomic
operation?
E.g.
shared ulong t;
...
t++;
It seems as if it ought to be, but it could be split into read,
increment, store.
I started off defining a shared struct,
If I define a shared ulong variable, is increment an atomic operation?
E.g.
shared ulong t;
...
t++;
It seems as if it ought to be, but it could be split into read,
increment, store.
I started off defining a shared struct, but that seems silly, as if the
operations defined within a shared
