(www.jtolds.com)

298 points jtolds | 1 comments | 02 Mar 16 15:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

Jabbles ◴[02 Mar 16 16:02 UTC] No.11210740[source]▶

Effective Go has always said:

Do not communicate by sharing memory; instead, share memory by communicating.

This approach can be taken too far. Reference counts may be best done by putting a mutex around an integer variable, for instance.

poizan42 ◴[02 Mar 16 16:19 UTC] No.11210862[source]▶

Reference counts are best done using interlocked increment/decrement primitives.

I wonder if there are any compilers which can replace

    mutex.lock { x++ }

With a 'lock xaddl x 1' instruction.

jupp0r ◴[02 Mar 16 20:51 UTC] No.11212909[source]▶

There ist std::atomic in recent C++ flavors

replies(1): >>11213355 #

1. chrisseaton ◴[02 Mar 16 21:55 UTC] No.11213355[source]▶

Right. My question is whether we can translate locks which only reference a single variable, to use something like std::atomic, automatically.

Go channels are bad