gcc
and g++
are compiler-drivers of the GNU Compiler Collection (which was once upon a time just the GNU C Compiler).
Even though they automatically determine which backends (cc1
cc1plus
...) to call depending on the file-type, unless overridden with -x language
, they have some differences.
The probably most important difference in their defaults is which libraries they link against automatically.
According to GCC's online documentation link options and how g++ is invoked, g++
is equivalent to gcc -xc++ -lstdc++ -shared-libgcc
(the 1st is a compiler option, the 2nd two are linker options). This can be checked by running both with the -v
option (it displays the backend toolchain commands being run).
The last two are identical; "atomic" is the default behavior (note that it is not actually a keyword; it is specified only by the absence of nonatomic
-- atomic
was added as a keyword in recent versions of llvm/clang).
Assuming that you are @synthesizing the method implementations, atomic vs. non-atomic changes the generated code. If you are writing your own setter/getters, atomic/nonatomic/retain/assign/copy are merely advisory. (Note: @synthesize is now the default behavior in recent versions of LLVM. There is also no need to declare instance variables; they will be synthesized automatically, too, and will have an _
prepended to their name to prevent accidental direct access).
With "atomic", the synthesized setter/getter will ensure that a whole value is always returned from the getter or set by the setter, regardless of setter activity on any other thread. That is, if thread A is in the middle of the getter while thread B calls the setter, an actual viable value -- an autoreleased object, most likely -- will be returned to the caller in A.
In nonatomic
, no such guarantees are made. Thus, nonatomic
is considerably faster than "atomic".
What "atomic" does not do is make any guarantees about thread safety. If thread A is calling the getter simultaneously with thread B and C calling the setter with different values, thread A may get any one of the three values returned -- the one prior to any setters being called or either of the values passed into the setters in B and C. Likewise, the object may end up with the value from B or C, no way to tell.
Ensuring data integrity -- one of the primary challenges of multi-threaded programming -- is achieved by other means.
Adding to this:
atomicity
of a single property also cannot guarantee thread safety when multiple dependent properties are in play.
Consider:
@property(atomic, copy) NSString *firstName;
@property(atomic, copy) NSString *lastName;
@property(readonly, atomic, copy) NSString *fullName;
In this case, thread A could be renaming the object by calling setFirstName:
and then calling setLastName:
. In the meantime, thread B may call fullName
in between thread A's two calls and will receive the new first name coupled with the old last name.
To address this, you need a transactional model. I.e. some other kind of synchronization and/or exclusion that allows one to exclude access to fullName
while the dependent properties are being updated.
Best Answer
The operation is really two operations.
Loading
num
is atomic. Adding it tovar
is atomic. But two atomic operations do not make an atomic operation when put together. This is why it is so hard to invent new lock-free data structures. In general, two thread-safe operations do not necessarily make a thread-safe operation when composed. This is the reason why it is so difficult to make correct multithreaded applications.You see,
__sync_fetch_and_add
is indeed atomic, but it behaves like an ordinary function -- so it takes the current value of "num" as a parameter. It is not quite correct to say the atomicity of the function is broken -- because it is the responsibility of the caller to load the value fromnum
, and it's not part of the function's interface. I could equally complain about this:Or worse,
You say it "may be interpreted as"
But according to the C spec, it's not that it may be interpreted this way, but rather, it must be interpreted this way, otherwise the compiler would not be conformant (actually, it could swap #1 and #2, but that's not important here).