The language specification guarantees that reading or writing a variable is atomic unless the variable is of type long or double [jls, 17.4.7] Its seems to me that these two are the same thing.is that correct? But atomic to what extent
Atomic_Keerati
To my understanding an operation can be atomic
What exactly is meant by making an object atomic
The definition of atomic is hazy The current wikipedia article on first nf (normal form) section atomicity actually quotes from the introductory parts above. Note that atomic is contextual In this case, the upsert operation only needs to be atomic with respect to operations on the answers table in the database
The computer can be free to do other things as long as they don't affect (or are affected by) the result of what upsert is trying to do. Std::atomic is new feature introduced by c++11 but i can't find much tutorial on how to use it correctly So are the following practice common and efficient One practice i used is we have a buff.
Atomic_shared_ptr<> as a distinct type has an important efficiency advantage over the functions in [util.smartptr.shared.atomic] — it can simply store an additional atomic_flag (or similar) for the internal spinlock as usual for atomic<bigstruct>.
The last two are identical Atomic is the default behavior (note that it is not actually a keyword Assuming that you are @synthesizing the method implementations, atomic vs If you are writing your own setter/getters, atomic/nonatomic.
Can someone explain to me, whats the difference between atomic operations and atomic transactions
