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









d-bugmail puremagic.com 