Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Making the creation of atomic_flag optional
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 12:09:22 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <upl6t2$33jod$1@dont-email.me>
References: <upifhv$19809$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:09:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="286117263b0f6b64895f76842d127006"; logging-data="3264269"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/3IO9W0b0eLOBAEuo9F3yNZSZvbc8ULX4="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xhSI1jZRHTWbvG55nS3Rwt5eJ64=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <upifhv$19809$1@solani.org>
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6644

On 02/02/2024 11:18, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> Currently, atomics are an all-or-nothing choice (via __SDTC_NO_ATOMICS__).
> 
> I'd like to see a third option: support atomics, except for the creation 
> of atomic_flag from allocated storage (or raw character arrays). This 
> would make it feasible to implement atomics for some low-end systems, 
> that otherwise can't support them efficiently.
> 
> Your opinions on the proposal and the proposed wording are welcome:
> http://www.colecovision.eu/stuff/proposal-atomic_flag.html
> 
> Philipp

I think it is fine to implement parts of the atomics - you just can't 
define the __SDTC_NO_ATOMICS__ symbol unless you cover it all.