This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Clarify __atomic_compare_exchange_n docs

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:42:47 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clarify __atomic_compare_exchange_n docs
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <20150929120038 dot GW12094 at redhat dot com> <560AAC7B dot 4030904 at codesourcery dot com> <560D18EB dot 5090900 at redhat dot com> <20151001173241 dot GJ12094 at redhat dot com> <560D6EB5 dot 7080604 at redhat dot com>

On 01/10/15 18:34 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:

On 10/01/2015 06:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

I would suggest we don't try to reproduce the standard definition, but
just say the weak version can fail spuriously and the strong can't.
IMHO this isn't the place to educate people in the fine points of
low-level atomics. As it says, "when in doubt use the strong
variation".

i.e. apply this in addition to my earlier suggestion.


"If you don't already know what a weak CAS is you probably should
not even think of using it."  :)


Exactly. These are not the built-ins you're looking for. :)

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Clarify __atomic_compare_exchange_n docs
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: [PATCH] Clarify __atomic_compare_exchange_n docs
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: [PATCH] Clarify __atomic_compare_exchange_n docs
  - From: Andrew Haley

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]