> On Nov 30, 2016, at 12:41 PM, John McCall via swift-dev <swift-dev@swift.org>
> wrote:
>
> When we say that we don't have a concurrency model, we mean that (1) we
> aren't providing a more complete language solution than the options available
> to C programmers and (2) like C pre-C11/C++11, we have not yet formalized a
> memory model for concurrency that provides formal guarantees about what
> accesses are guaranteed to not conflict if they do race. (For example, we
> are unlikely to guarantee that accesses to different properties of a struct
> can occur in parallel, but we may choose to make that guarantee for different
> properties of a class.)
>
I’d actually been intending to ask about this. Is there any reason why the
lowest level won’t just be a fairly vanilla copy-paste of the C11 concurrency
model. That is, there’s non-atomic/relaxed/acquire/release/seqcst loads and
stores, and all the happens-before graph stuff that comes along with it. I
imagine doing anything else would be fairly challenging for LLVM?
_______________________________________________
swift-dev mailing list
swift-dev@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
