Fixing core.atomic

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 16:34:35 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 09:26:36 UTC, rm wrote:
>>
>> I don't consider this a problem. In this case you have a load 
>> and a store. This is a non-atomic RMW. On the other hand, you 
>> do get sequential consistency synchronization from this 
>> process.
>
> I prefer atomicLoad and atomicStore then, because it's explicit 
> and it's useless to hide the fact it's atomic behind nice 
> syntax.

Yes, how often do people use this anyway? I try to avoid 
concurrency issues and have found that I tend to end up using 
compare-exchange when I have to.