Yes, that's understood. I'm just responding to the notion that it's a bug for a package author to expect the compiler to do the right thing.
On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 15:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Dan Kortschak > <dan.kortsc...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote: > > > > > > This ignores the possibility that more than one alignment-sensitive > > field might be needed. Requiring that they all be up front, > > potentially > > degrading readability flies in the face of the design principles of > > the > > language. This kind foot-gun in other languages is why many people > > choose Go. > Yes. It's a bug. It's listed as a bug at the bottom of > https://golang.org/pkg/sync/atomic. The problem is that we haven't > figured out the right way to fix it. It may require a language > change. Or see https://golang.org/issue/19057 . > > Ian > > > > > > On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 06:49 +0000, Jakob Borg wrote: > > > > > > It’s a bug in the library if it uses 64 bit atomic operations > > > without > > > ensuring 64 bit alignment. Putting the alignment-required field > > > at > > > the top of the struct is the traditional method. > > > > > > //jb > > -- > > 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. -- 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.
