Author vstinner
Recipients John.Malmberg, Vitor.de.Lima, gustavotemple, jyasskin, neologix, vstinner
Date 2014-12-17.23:53:27
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1418860407.31.0.963467729742.issue22038@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
atomicv2.patch:
> _Atomic int _value;

Why not using the atomic_int type from stdatomic.h here?

> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html

"__atomic_store_n(): The valid memory model variants are __ATOMIC_RELAXED, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, and __ATOMIC_RELEASE."

I understand that _Py_atomic_store_explicit() only accept some values for order. An assertion should be added here, maybe for any implementation. Something like:

#define _Py_atomic_store_explicit(ATOMIC_VAL, NEW_VAL, ORDER) \
    (assert((ORDER) == __ATOMIC_RELAXED                       \
            || (ORDER) == __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST                    \
            || (ORDER) == __ATOMIC_RELEASE),                  \
     __atomic_store_n(&(ATOMIC_VAL)->_value, NEW_VAL, ORDER))

Same remark for _Py_atomic_load_explicit():

"__atomic_load_n(): The valid memory model variants are __ATOMIC_RELAXED, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE, and __ATOMIC_CONSUME."
History
Date User Action Args
2014-12-17 23:53:27vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, jyasskin, neologix, John.Malmberg, Vitor.de.Lima, gustavotemple
2014-12-17 23:53:27vstinnersetmessageid: <1418860407.31.0.963467729742.issue22038@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2014-12-17 23:53:27vstinnerlinkissue22038 messages
2014-12-17 23:53:27vstinnercreate