On 03.12.2011 20:14, Dejan Lekic wrote:
I recently stumbled on this thread: http://stackoverflow.com/
questions/5666321/what-is-assignment-via-curly-braces-called-and-can-it-
be-controlled
The important part is this:
8< - begin -
The Standard says in section §8.5.1/1,
On 12/03/2011 11:30 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 22:56:41 Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/03/2011 09:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 21:41:45 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
That page says that reads and writes a
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 22:56:41 Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 12/03/2011 09:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 03, 2011 21:41:45 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> >> On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> That page says that reads and writes are guaranteed to be atomic for
> >>> s
On 12/03/2011 09:49 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 21:41:45 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
That page says that reads and writes are guaranteed to be atomic for
shared. It does _not_ say that something like ++threadsCount is
guaranteed to
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 21:41:45 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > That page says that reads and writes are guaranteed to be atomic for
> > shared. It does _not_ say that something like ++threadsCount is
> > guaranteed to be atomic.
>
> Woops, sorry it was a
On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> That page says that reads and writes are guaranteed to be atomic for shared.
> It does _not_ say that something like ++threadsCount is guaranteed to be
> atomic.
Woops, sorry it was a typo. I meant page 411, not 413. It says it's an
error there. Btw, I never
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 20:54:38 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Where in TDPL does it say this?
>
> Page 413.
>
> > Requiring that all operations on a shared
> > object be atomic would be highly restrictive.
>
> Yeah sorry, my title was wrong, of course
On 12/3/11, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Where in TDPL does it say this?
Page 413.
> Requiring that all operations on a shared
> object be atomic would be highly restrictive.
Yeah sorry, my title was wrong, of course you could use
synchronization instead of atomics. But shared does need to have
gu
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 20:22:40 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On 12/3/11 8:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Sure, if you use anything other
> > than an atomic operation on a shared object and don't use a synchronized
> > block or a mutex or the like, you risk race conditions, but if every
> >
On 12/3/11 8:19 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Sure, if you use anything other
than an atomic operation on a shared object and don't use a synchronized block
or a mutex or the like, you risk race conditions, but if every operation on a
shared object had to actually be atomic, you couldn't do much of
On Saturday, December 03, 2011 18:32:15 Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> I thought this wasn't allowed:
>
> shared uint threadsCount;
>
> void bumpThreadsCount()
> {
> ++threadsCount;
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> }
>
> According to TDPL it should error and we should use atomicOp from
> std.concurrency
I recently stumbled on this thread: http://stackoverflow.com/
questions/5666321/what-is-assignment-via-curly-braces-called-and-can-it-
be-controlled
The important part is this:
8< - begin -
The Standard says in section §8.5.1/1,
An aggregate is an array or a class (claus
I thought this wasn't allowed:
shared uint threadsCount;
void bumpThreadsCount()
{
++threadsCount;
}
void main()
{
}
According to TDPL it should error and we should use atomicOp from
std.concurrency instead. atomicOp is what I've used so far if I had to
use shared variables. Has ++ suddenly
On 12/3/11 1:49 PM, simendsjo wrote:
Seems one of your bugs recently got a pull request:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/449
I'm aware of that, though Walter apparently still thinks it's okay for
foo!3u and foo!3 to be different things given »template foo(uint u)«…
David
On 03.12.2011 10:26, David Nadlinger wrote:
I posted my project to the NG, and there seemed to actually be two or
three people interested in it, but I didn't submit it to formal review
yet, because it sometimes breaks in interesting ways due to compiler
bugs (issue 3467 [3] and the likes), and I
David, to be frank, your code is already useful! Something is better than
*nothing*! I hope you or someone else will continue with these two modules,
and include them in Phobos.
On 12/3/11 1:43 AM, simendsjo wrote:
On 02.12.2011 23:28, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There's also been at least a couple of cases where people
have worked on unit libraries and discussed them in the main
newsgroup, but so
far, nothing has gotten to the point where it's been reviewed for
introductio
17 matches
Mail list logo
