Fixing core.atomic

[rm]

On 03/06/2021 1:04, sarn wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 June 2021 at 14:50:44 UTC, rm wrote:
>> *snip*
> 
> Sorry, but I don't feel like anything you wrote relates to anything I 
> actually said.  For example:
> 
>> Anyway, I disagree about the simple cases. Because specifically the 
>> case of simple event counter that isn't require for synchronization, 
>> you should be using relaxed. There is no need for sequential 
>> consistency in this case.
> 
> The "simple cases" comment was about how the "thread-safe value" 
> abstraction only works at all in a few simple cases (such as an event 
> counter that doesn't affect flow of control).  No one has implied 
> anything about what memory order you need for a counter.
> 
> But if you do consider memory order, that's more reason to treat atomic 
> operations as explicit atomic *operations*, and not wrap them in a 
> "thread-safe value" abstraction.

I think I was conflating two replies into one and misread your response.

Either way, it does allow for easier porting from C/C++ if such code is 
used.