Currently, atomics are an all-or-nothing choice (via __SDTC_NO_ATOMICS__).

I'd like to see a third option: support atomics, except for the creation
of atomic_flag from allocated storage (or raw character arrays). This
would make it feasible to implement atomics for some low-end systems,
that otherwise can't support them efficiently.

Your opinions on the proposal and the proposed wording are welcome: http://www.colecovision.eu/stuff/proposal-atomic_flag.html

Philipp

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/02/2024 11:18, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:

Currently, atomics are an all-or-nothing choice (via __SDTC_NO_ATOMICS__).

I'd like to see a third option: support atomics, except for the creation
of atomic_flag from allocated storage (or raw character arrays). This
would make it feasible to implement atomics for some low-end systems,
that otherwise can't support them efficiently.

Your opinions on the proposal and the proposed wording are welcome: http://www.colecovision.eu/stuff/proposal-atomic_flag.html

Philipp

I think it is fine to implement parts of the atomics - you just can't
define the __SDTC_NO_ATOMICS__ symbol unless you cover it all.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Am 03.02.24 um 12:09 schrieb David Brown:

I think it is fine to implement parts of the atomics - you just can't
define the __SDTC_NO_ATOMICS__ symbol unless you cover it all.

The problem here is that there are architectures, where atomics could be implemented except for one small issue - you can't use a char array (or allocated memory) as an atomic_flag. IMO, it would be good if this
situation could be reflected in the standard.

Philipp

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)