[PATCH] Clarify __atomic_compare_exchange_n docs
Jonathan Wakely
jwakely@redhat.com
Thu Oct 1 18:35:00 GMT 2015
On 01/10/15 11:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>Hmmmm, yes. Looking at the section as a whole, is it a bug in the
>implementation that the built-ins only "approximately match" the C++11
>requirements?
AFAIK they exactly match, so I don't know why the docs say that.
>If there were an exact correspondence, it would only be
>necessary to point at the standard (I think it would be more helpful
>to mention <stdatomic.h> here than to cite a specific section number),
That's the C11 header, the C++11 header is <atomic>.
>identify what C++11 names the built-ins map onto,
It's pretty straightforward, I'm not sure we need to say much:
__atomic_xxx(_n)? -> atomic_xxx
>and to document any
>implementation-defined behavior allowed by the standard and GCC
>extensions.
There is nothing implementation-defined in the atomics clause, just
some wooly requirements like "Implementations should make atomic
stores visible to atomic loads within a reasonable amount of time."
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list