du548397507 2017-08-27 17:34
浏览 8

您可以使“不正确同步”的测试失败吗?

  1. Can this test ever fail on x86, x64, ARM?
  2. If so, is it possible to make it fail (in some sort of setup) and without changing the test code itself?

    func Test_WaitGroup_Simple(t *testing.T) {
        var condition bool
        var wg sync.WaitGroup
        wg.Add(1)
        go func() {
            condition = true
            wg.Done()
        }()
        wg.Wait()
        if !condition {
            t.Error("Condition is false. But expected was true.")
        }
    }
    
  • 写回答

2条回答 默认 最新

  • doucan8246326 2017-08-28 10:33
    关注

    I have changed abit your test to make comparsion between atomic module:

    package main
    
    import (
        "sync"
        // "sync/atomic"
        "fmt"
    )
    
    func main() {
        var condition int32
        var wg sync.WaitGroup
        wg.Add(1)
        go func() {
            condition = 101
            //atomic.StoreInt32(&condition,101)
            wg.Done()
        }()
        wg.Wait()
        if condition != 101 {
            fmt.Println("Condition is false. But expected was true.")
        } else {
            fmt.Println("Ok.")
        }
    }
    

    https://play.golang.org/p/8ewy2uMNNH

    With go asm we can check what code will be produced

    go tool compile -S t.go
    

    Here is production of inline code from

    atomic.StoreInt32(&condition,101)

        0x001d 00029 (t.go:15)  MOVL    $101, AX
        0x0022 00034 (t.go:15)  MOVQ    "".&condition+24(FP), CX
        0x0027 00039 (t.go:15)  XCHGL   AX, (CX)
        0x0029 00041 (t.go:16)  MOVQ    "".&wg+32(FP), AX
        0x002e 00046 (t.go:16)  MOVQ    AX, (SP)
        0x0032 00050 (t.go:16)  PCDATA  $0, $1
    
        0x0032 00050 (t.go:16)  CALL    sync.(*WaitGroup).Done(SB)
    

    Here is production of

    condition = 101

    0x001d 00029 (t.go:14)  MOVQ    "".&condition+24(FP), AX
    0x0022 00034 (t.go:14)  MOVL    $101, (AX)
    0x0028 00040 (t.go:16)  MOVQ    "".&wg+32(FP), AX
    0x002d 00045 (t.go:16)  MOVQ    AX, (SP)
    0x0031 00049 (t.go:16)  PCDATA  $0, $1
    
    0x0031 00049 (t.go:16)  CALL    sync.(*WaitGroup).Done(SB)
    

    As You see there is not so much difference on the code. I have used int32 just to make the clean the difference for both cases. but go produces , more or less the same code for other atomic types including bool

    If You look at the implementation of atomic/store function on i386 platform it acttually do nothing:

    sync/atomic/asm_amd64.s

    TEXT ·StoreUint32(SB),NOSPLIT,$0-8
            MOVL    addr+0(FP), BP
            MOVL    val+4(FP), AX
            XCHGL   AX, 0(BP)
            RET
    

    But store 64 bit on 32 platform is already tricky and of course can not be replaced with simple "=" operation.

    Thats why my answer is: This test will always pass on atleast 386 and amd64 platforms. The other thing that it is a bad practice - but it is actually the story from the other ticket.

    评论

报告相同问题?

悬赏问题

  • ¥50 用易语言http 访问不了网页
  • ¥50 safari浏览器fetch提交数据后数据丢失问题
  • ¥15 matlab不知道怎么改,求解答!!
  • ¥15 永磁直线电机的电流环pi调不出来
  • ¥15 用stata实现聚类的代码
  • ¥15 请问paddlehub能支持移动端开发吗?在Android studio上该如何部署?
  • ¥20 docker里部署springboot项目,访问不到扬声器
  • ¥15 netty整合springboot之后自动重连失效
  • ¥15 悬赏!微信开发者工具报错,求帮改
  • ¥20 wireshark抓不到vlan