Fixing core.atomic

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 20:01:57 UTC, Max Haughton wrote:
> On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 17:51:26 UTC, IGotD- wrote:
>> On Monday, 31 May 2021 at 16:34:35 UTC, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
>>>
>>> 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, you can use it if you want to. We will not remove the 
>> regular D atomic functions.
>
> That and the C++ `std::atomic` will provide the same semantics 
> on types of wide size (LDC and GDC seem to differ in behaviour 
> here when you use the atomic primitive functions.)

Are you sure?

«All atomic types except for std::atomic_flag may be implemented 
using mutexes or other locking operations, rather than using the 
lock-free atomic CPU instructions.»

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/atomic_is_lock_free

C/C++ is trying to be hardware-independent to a much larger 
extent than D.