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 19:02:05 -0700
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Ken Ferry <email@hidden> wrote:
> This is the kind of reasoning you want to avoid, actually. That's true on
> most but not all architectures. That article does explain.
> It's true on all architectures on which Cocoa is available, but even so, to
> write clear code whose correctness is verifiable, you don't want to rely on
> things like that.
Indeed it does—specifically the lockless linked list lookup (*whew*)
in part 2. Though I must say the terminology is not helpful; I keep
seeing "reorder" as an active thing the CPUs are doing, rather than as
a passive effect of something they're not doing. I much prefer the
"guarantee" terminology. (Then again, I apparently have a black hole
in my memory when it comes to private vs. project framework headers,
so I have no reason to expect my situation with respect to memory
synchronization to fare any better.)
Thanks for the links.
--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