• Mike Parker (15/15) Oct 27 2019 This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community
• Aliak (3/6) Oct 27 2019 Love this one! Some examples of code that’ll break would be nice
• Manu (3/18) Oct 27 2019 Perfect. Thanks!
• Timon Gehr (13/35) Oct 27 2019 Looks good, except for this sentence:
• Manu (6/41) Oct 28 2019 I had this thought too.
• Steven Schveighoffer (7/29) Nov 06 2019 This looks like exactly what I've been looking for in terms of shared!
• John Colvin (3/6) Nov 07 2019 This is a much needed improvement. I look forward to fixing all

Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:

This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community 
Review for DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics":

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/0093abce72fa803b9e4067db500171c634daa4a9/DIPs/DIP1024.md

All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should 
occur in this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET 
on November 10, or when I make a post declaring it complete.

At the end of Round 2, if further review is deemed necessary, the 
DIP will be scheduled for another round of Community Review. 
Otherwise, it will be queued for the Final Review and Formal 
Assessment.

Anyone intending to post feedback in this thread is expected to 
be familiar with the reviewer guidelines:

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md

*Please stay on topic!*

Thanks in advance to all who participate.

Aliak <something something.com> writes:

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 12:20:49 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community 
 Review for DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics":

 [...]

Love this one! Some examples of code that’ll break would be nice 
to have i suppose. But otherwise can’t wait for this to get in!! 🎉

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 5:25 AM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:
 This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community
 Review for DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics":

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/0093abce72fa803b9e4067db500171c634daa4a9/DIPs/DIP1024.md

 All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should
 occur in this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET
 on November 10, or when I make a post declaring it complete.

 At the end of Round 2, if further review is deemed necessary, the
 DIP will be scheduled for another round of Community Review.
 Otherwise, it will be queued for the Final Review and Formal
 Assessment.

 Anyone intending to post feedback in this thread is expected to
 be familiar with the reviewer guidelines:

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md

 *Please stay on topic!*

 Thanks in advance to all who participate.

Perfect. Thanks!

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 27.10.19 13:20, Mike Parker wrote:
 This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community Review for 
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics":
 
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/0093abce72fa803b9e4067db500171c634da
4a9/DIPs/DIP1024.md 
 
 
 All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should occur in 
 this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on November 10, 
 or when I make a post declaring it complete.
 
 At the end of Round 2, if further review is deemed necessary, the DIP 
 will be scheduled for another round of Community Review. Otherwise, it 
 will be queued for the Final Review and Formal Assessment.
 
 Anyone intending to post feedback in this thread is expected to be 
 familiar with the reviewer guidelines:
 
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md
 
 *Please stay on topic!*
 
 Thanks in advance to all who participate.

Looks good, except for this sentence:

"Atomic reads perform an acquire operation, writes perform a release 
operation, and read-modify-write performs an acquire, then a 
modification, and then a release. The result is sequentially consistent 
ordering, and each thread observes the same order of operations (total 
order)."

While atomics that act like this already provide some useful guarantees, 
this is not enough to ensure sequential consistency for more than two 
threads. This post explains it well: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14864466

Probably the sentence can just be dropped from the DIP, as it does not 
actually describe a language change, and core.atomic is more general 
than this anyway.

Manu <turkeyman gmail.com> writes:

On Sun, Oct 27, 2019 at 2:25 PM Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 27.10.19 13:20, Mike Parker wrote:
 This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community Review for
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics":

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/0093abce72fa803b9e4067db500171c634daa4a9/DIPs/DIP1024.md


 All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should occur in
 this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on November 10,
 or when I make a post declaring it complete.

 At the end of Round 2, if further review is deemed necessary, the DIP
 will be scheduled for another round of Community Review. Otherwise, it
 will be queued for the Final Review and Formal Assessment.

 Anyone intending to post feedback in this thread is expected to be
 familiar with the reviewer guidelines:

 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md

 *Please stay on topic!*

 Thanks in advance to all who participate.

 Looks good, except for this sentence:

 "Atomic reads perform an acquire operation, writes perform a release
 operation, and read-modify-write performs an acquire, then a
 modification, and then a release. The result is sequentially consistent
 ordering, and each thread observes the same order of operations (total
 order)."

 While atomics that act like this already provide some useful guarantees,
 this is not enough to ensure sequential consistency for more than two
 threads. This post explains it well: https://stackoverflow.com/a/14864466

 Probably the sentence can just be dropped from the DIP, as it does not
 actually describe a language change, and core.atomic is more general
 than this anyway.

I had this thought too.
The atomic functions all accept arguments which define the fence
strategies anyway. The rules stated are not strictly necessary, or
actually true.

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:

On 10/27/19 8:20 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
 This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community Review for 
 DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics":
 
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/0093abce72fa803b9e4067db500171c634da
4a9/DIPs/DIP1024.md 
 
 
 All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should occur in 
 this thread. The review period will end at 11:59 PM ET on November 10, 
 or when I make a post declaring it complete.
 
 At the end of Round 2, if further review is deemed necessary, the DIP 
 will be scheduled for another round of Community Review. Otherwise, it 
 will be queued for the Final Review and Formal Assessment.
 
 Anyone intending to post feedback in this thread is expected to be 
 familiar with the reviewer guidelines:
 
 https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/docs/guidelines-reviewers.md
 
 *Please stay on topic!*
 
 Thanks in advance to all who participate.

This looks like exactly what I've been looking for in terms of shared! 
Thanks, I look very much forward to this being included. I'm a dunce 
when it comes to the atomic stuff, so I'll defer to more knowledgeable 
folks to cover those details (and hopefully provide some nice 
library/patterns).

-Steve

John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 at 12:20:49 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
 This is the feedback thread for the second round of Community 
 Review for DIP 1024, "Shared Atomics":

 [...]

This is a much needed improvement. I look forward to fixing all 
the code it will deprecate as it's almost certainly wrong anyway.