• Etienne Cimon (30/30) Dec 06 2014 This is the only issue preventing a truly thread-local GC for better
• Etienne (1/1) Dec 08 2014 So, nobody is in favor of extending the shared attribute for heap storag...
• John Colvin (3/5) Dec 08 2014 I think people are a bit distracted with the scope proposal at
• Dicebot (3/8) Dec 08 2014 Yes, there are just too many (potentially conflicting) things
• Etienne (3/12) Dec 08 2014 It's alright, I'll figure out a way to fit it into a private branch so I...

Etienne Cimon <etcimon gmail.com> writes:

This is the only issue preventing a truly thread-local GC for better 
multi-core scalability for D applications. From: 
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/1057#issuecomment-65904128

The best way to achieve a thread-local GC would be to improve and 
enforce `shared`-correctness in Phobos/druntime (at first). We need to 
start considering `shared` as a heap storage attribute as well, for 
consistency. An optional compiler warning (through a flag) would be a 
start.

If even a 30% speedup is possible down the line, it's worth it. The more 
threads, the more improvements.

There's also some new opportunities with this. Here's an example that 
involves TLS data to influence the behavior of shared objects, without 
using a global `T[Thread]` hashmap.

```D
shared class A {
	private bool m_init; // different on every thread
	
	public shared:
	AA m_impl;
	
	synchronized void init() {
		if (!m_init)
			m_impl.add(Thread.getThis());
	}
	
	...
	
	
}
```

Etienne <etcimon gmail.com> writes:

So, nobody is in favor of extending the shared attribute for heap storage?

"John Colvin" <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 14:48:28 UTC, Etienne wrote:
 So, nobody is in favor of extending the shared attribute for 
 heap storage?

I think people are a bit distracted with the scope proposal at 
the moment.

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 15:07:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 14:48:28 UTC, Etienne wrote:
 So, nobody is in favor of extending the shared attribute for 
 heap storage?

 I think people are a bit distracted with the scope proposal at 
 the moment.

Yes, there are just too many (potentially conflicting) things 
happening right now, sorry.

Etienne <etcimon gmail.com> writes:

On 2014-12-08 11:36 AM, Dicebot wrote:
 On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 15:07:48 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
 On Monday, 8 December 2014 at 14:48:28 UTC, Etienne wrote:
 So, nobody is in favor of extending the shared attribute for heap
 storage?

 I think people are a bit distracted with the scope proposal at the
 moment.

 Yes, there are just too many (potentially conflicting) things happening
 right now, sorry.

It's alright, I'll figure out a way to fit it into a private branch so I 
can at least do it for myself.