[#62904] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9894] [Open] [RFC] README.EXT: document rb_gc_register_mark_object — normalperson@...
Issue #9894 has been reported by Eric Wong.
3 messages
2014/06/02
[#63321] [ANN] ElixirConf 2014 - Don't Miss Jos辿 Valim and Dave Thomas — Jim Freeze <jimfreeze@...>
Just a few more weeks until ElixirConf 2014!
6 messages
2014/06/24
[ruby-core:63030] Re: [CommonRuby - Feature #8259] Atomic attributes accessors
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2014-06-09 23:37:03 UTC
List:
ruby-core #63030
thedarkone2@gmail.com wrote: > Adding "atomic" operations to built in `Array`s, `Hash`es etc. is a very bad idea > because that would force that *all* of the methods on `Array`s and `Hash`es be > concurrency friendly and would result in irreparable performance problems for > truly concurrent Ruby VMs (and this again would put an upper limit on Ruby > performance). I do atomic operations all the time in C on arbitrary addresses. Lazy, non-atomic accesses run without speed penalty if I don't need up-to-date data. The uncommon case of Array/Hash shrinkage would require RCU or similar (epoch-based reclamation). But there's no penalty for reads or in-place modifications other than the cost of the atomic and required memory barriers. Ruby swap/cas (in Ruby) should probably raise on non-existent Array/Hash elements.