Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 12:10:50 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:50:36 PM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor > wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:46 AM, T L wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thurs

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L wrote: > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:50:36 PM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:46 AM, T L wrote: >> > >> > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 10:50:36 PM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:46 AM, T L > > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:46 AM, T L wrote: > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L wrote: >> > >> > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

Or maybe it works the other way? Because sync/atomic is covered then by accidental extension so is unsafe. tors 8 sep. 2016 kl 15:00 skrev Jan Mercl <0xj...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM T L wrote: > > > Aren't the parameters of atomic.Load/Store/SwapPointer functions > (*)unsafe.

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:51 PM T L wrote: > Aren't the parameters of atomic.Load/Store/SwapPointer functions (*)unsafe.Pointer? Yes, they are. Using any package API that involves unsafe.Pointer implies your program must "import unsafe" to use it. And that means your program is not covered by the

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 7:00:33 PM UTC+8, Jakob Borg wrote: > > tors 8 sep. 2016 kl 12:46 skrev T L >: > >> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor >> wrote: >> >>> Perhaps you could explain what kind of compatibility risk you are >>> concerned about t

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

tors 8 sep. 2016 kl 12:46 skrev T L : > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor > wrote: > >> Perhaps you could explain what kind of compatibility risk you are >> concerned about that is not covered by the Go 1 compatibility >> guarantee. Please give an example of

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC+8, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L > > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L wrote: > >> > >> https://golang.org/d

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:16 AM, T L wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L wrote: >> >> https://golang.org/doc/go1compat >> > > Then how to write compatibility safe atomic pointer reads/writes code? Do I > must us

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L > > wrote: > > https://golang.org/doc/go1compat > > Then how to write compatibility safe atomic pointer reads/writes code? Do I must use atomic.Value for pointers? > -- > > -j > --

[go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L wrote: https://golang.org/doc/go1compat -- -j -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@goog

Re: [go-nuts] Is there the incompatibility risk when using the XxxxPointer functions in sync/atomic package in later go versions?

On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 10:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jan Mercl wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:54 PM T L > > wrote: > > https://golang.org/doc/go1compat > yes, risk exists? > > -- > > -j > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" gro