|
|
|
|
|
|
by shawn-butler
4817 days ago
|
|
|
The bait statement was: "Or are you claiming that C++ is in fact particularly well suited for parallel development and inherent avoidance of data races?" I answered the c++ memory model was certainly sufficient and the implementation was left to libraries until C++11 when it was standardized. I did not mean to imply that the c++ memory model underlies that of Rust. And I agree these are great points to illustrate. Would make some great text to use on their introduction page in place of the trolling. Still, I believe the same deficiency exists regarding compiler enforcement for Rust since the "unsafe" keyword allows for manual management, correct? I can't intelligently comment on the compiler optimizations to which you refer. If you could provide some reference to further analysis? Regardless, the two same two people are downvoting my comments so I won't be commenting further. Although you clearly understand, I'll throw in the token links for people who may not understand what a memory model is or how the c++ memory model has been formally standardized. To be honest, I don't know why I bother. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_model_(programming) [1]: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~pes20/cpp/popl085ap-sewell.pdf |
|
|