[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] set! atomic?
From: |
Felix |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] set! atomic? |
Date: |
Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:13:40 +0200 (CEST) |
From: Bryan Vicknair <address@hidden>
Subject: [Chicken-users] set! atomic?
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:15:52 -0700
> SRFI-18 states:
>
> "Read and write operations on the store (such as reading and writing a
> variable, an element of a vector or a string) are not required to be atomic.
> It is an error for a thread to write a location in the store while some
> other
> thread reads or writes that same location."
>
> Is it possible to eval a variable that is in an inconsistent state? I
> understand that if there are a series of set-car! on a list, then a reader may
> see the list as it is in between any of the set-car! calls. But is it
> possible
> that an update to a very large object will ever be interrupted by one thread
> such that other threads will see a broken version?
>
> (use srfi-1)
> (define foo '(1 2 3))
> (thread-start! (make-thread (lambda () (set! foo (iota 1e8)))))
> (print foo)
>
> In the above code, will the primordial thread ever print a list that
> isn't exactly (1 2 3) or (iota 1e8)?
The assignment itself is fully atomic, as is the destructive
modification of any single data-cell like pair-cells, vector-elements
or record-structure slots.
cheers
felix