Re: GC and atomic getters/setters
Re: GC and atomic getters/setters
- Subject: Re: GC and atomic getters/setters
- From: Kyle Sluder <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:32:26 -0700
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ken Ferry <email@hidden> wrote:
> The issue concerns the order of in which changes to memory are observable by
> other processors.
Okay, and the read example is immune because you have to read the
address before you can read the thing at that address, and it's
therefore impossible to wind up in a bad situation due to read
reordering, simply because the reads have to be structured in a
particular way.
I'm struggling to picture being able to write code that is sensitive
to write reordering under GC that is not either sensitive to write
reordering on non-GC with equivalent locking and is also not sensitive
to other concurrency problems.
Of course, I attribute this more to my lack of imagination or
experience at the lower levels than to the lack of a good example.
--Kyle Sluder
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden