core.atomics and handling of backward MemoryOrders

[Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d]

On 4 Jul 2015 11:12, "Iain Buclaw" <ibuclaw at gdcproject.org> wrote:
>
> On 4 July 2015 at 10:39, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, 4 July 2015 at 07:16:09 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4 Jul 2015 00:50, "rsw0x via Digitalmars-d" <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> __sync_* builtins to the new (more compatible with how core.atomics is
supposed to function) __atomic_* builtins.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> accepted as valid, but makes no sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> both cases to throw a compilation error (using static assert).  However
I'd like the core druntime team to be on board with this.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> forgot until I read this.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>
>> This is how it's currently implemented in C++ as of C++14, correct?
>> acquire semantics on a write and release semantics on a load make no
sense, so this probably should be changed.
>
>
>
> Yes, that is correct.  I think closely matching the behaviour of C++14 is
the safe option given that this module shares a lot in common with
std::atomic.
>
> std::atomic::atomic_compare_exchange_strong -> core.atomic.cas
> std::atomic::memory_order -> core.atomic.MemoryOrder
> std::atomic::atomic_load -> core.atomic.atomicLoad
> std::atomic::atomic_store -> core.atomic.atomicStore
> std::atomic::atomic_thread_fence -> core.atomic.atomicFence
>
> Iain.
>
>

OK, I've added static asserts to my PR.

Iain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150704/8a52f84b/attachment.html>