Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Making the creation of atomic_flag optional
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 08:44:36 +0100
Message-ID: <uq20p4$1h47g$1@solani.org>
References: <upifhv$19809$1@solani.org> <upl6t2$33jod$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 07:44:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="1609968"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zSGmys2/phhfKIBsD6/Xk3fPpxE=
Content-Language: en-US
X-User-ID: eJwNycENADEIA8GWzgoYKAeRuP8SDu1v1g/BCaPTXFszMU4EXqTSvrawolhoNfV2T92cszT8AQwkEPc=
In-Reply-To: <upl6t2$33jod$1@dont-email.me>
Xref: csiph.com comp.std.c:6645

Am 03.02.24 um 12:09 schrieb David Brown:
> 
> 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.

The problem here is that there are architectures, where atomics could be 
implemented except for one small issue - you can't use a char array (or 
allocated memory) as an atomic_flag. IMO, it would be good if this 
situation could be reflected in the standard.

Philipp