digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 3672] New: read-modify-write (rmw) operators must be disabled for shared
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (25/25) Jan 04 2010 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (18/18) Jan 30 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Feb 04 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/13) Mar 23 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672 Summary: read-modify-write (rmw) operators must be disabled for shared Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: andrei metalanguage.com 08:51:32 PST --- shared int x; void main() { x++; } This compiles but it shouldn't. For a shared word-sized object, only reading and writing it are allowed, as well as shared and synchronized calls where applicable. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 04 2010
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672 yebblies <yebblies gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yebblies gmail.com Platform|Other |All Version|2.040 |D2 AssignedTo|nobody puremagic.com |yebblies gmail.com OS/Version|Linux |All Since this is a couple of years old, can you confirm that this is still what is desired? Essentially shared variables act like rvalues except for assignment? Is the compiler expected to make reads/writes atomic or is it better disabled completely and left to atomicStore/atomicLoad etc? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 30 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672 Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andrei erdani.com, | |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com 18:26:54 PST --- CC'ing Andrei for update. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 04 2013
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3672 PDT --- I've had a discussion with Walter in which we agreed that atomic increment should NOT be generated implicitly for shared variables. Herb Sutter also agrees that C++11 made a mistake adding the sugar to atomic<T> and recommends using named functions. Code using operands with shared data should not compile. Named functions should provide the appropriate primitives. There is no issue of code breakage because the code listed was behaving incorrectly to start with. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Mar 23 2013