On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 9:06 AM jake...@gmail.com <jake6...@gmail.com> wrote: > > My understanding is that atomic does not 'synchronize memory' in general. If > you use a Mutex, then everything that happened before is 'synchronized'. If > you use atomic then only the atomic variable is 'synchronized'. That is kind > of the point of using atomic. > > If I am wrong, please point me at the part of the Go Memory Model that says > otherwise. Personally, I have always felt that the go memory model, and > specifically the guarantees of the atomic package are not as rigorously > defined as I would like. But in this case, I'm pretty sure I am correct.
The behavior of the sync/atomic package is not specified at all by the Go memory model. See https://golang.org/issue/5045. I'm not sure I agree that using sync/atomic means that only that memory location is synchronized (assuming I understand what that means, which I may not). There are other meaningful patterns for sync/atomic. Ian -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAOyqgcXKCSHb4-g7uHvf-RMsky8veC52OFDjmguUQCxHDXbShA%40mail.gmail.com.
