Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8924617
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 15, 20262026-06-15T07:28:03+00:00 2026-06-15T07:28:03+00:00

I have a unique type integer. I use it like this: int unique=0; public

  • 0

I have a “unique” type integer. I use it like this:

int unique=0;
public int GetUniqueId()
{
  return unique++;
}

I know I’m being a bit paranoid, but is this an atomic operation, or would it require some form of lock? This function will be used in a extremely concurrent class.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-15T07:28:05+00:00Added an answer on June 15, 2026 at 7:28 am

    No; this is emphatically not atomic.
    x++ compiles to three separate instructions (load, increment, store), which can be interrupted by other threads.

    If this will run on multiple threads, you should call Interlocked.Increment(ref unique) (which is atomic) instead.
    This call is somewhat slower than a regular increment, much much faster than a full lock.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I've ArrayList (get_unique) of type integer where in I have to insert only unique
I have a template that creates a unique identifier for each type it is
All Hadoop jobs have unique jobid. You can use jobid to get job status
I know that using the following codes will make each column have unique values,
I have a simple SQLite table called message: sequence INTEGER PRIMARY KEY type TEXT
From my experience I have learn that using an surrogate INT data type column
I have the folowing schema: catalogue: actAs: [Timestampable, Sortable] columns: id: type: integer(2) primary:
I have a table which includes an integer type column named sequence, which does
I have a table looking like this created with sqlite. CREATE TABLE Cars (
In a quick-and-dirty Perl script, I have a data structure like this: $tax_revenue{YEAR}{STATE}{GOVLEV}{TAX} =

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.