On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 08:25:44PM +0000, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > <snip> > > > > > > > As I mentioned earlier in this thread, GCC supports 2 types of > > > atomics. "Use GCC atomic builtins" does not help distinguish between > > > them. In "GCC's C11 atomic builtins" - "C11" indicates which atomics > > > we are using, "atomic builtins" indicates that we are NOT using APIs > > > from stdatomic.h > > > > if you need a term to distinguish the two sets of atomics in gcc you can > > qualify > > it with "Memory Model Aware" which is straight from the gcc manual. > "Memory model aware" sounds too generic. The same page [1] also makes it > clear that the built-in functions match the requirements for the C11 memory > model.
allow me to put your interpretation of the manual that you linked side by side with what the manual text actually says verbatim. your text from above "built-in functions match the requirements for the C11 memory model." the actual text from your link "built-in functions approximately match the requirements for the C++11 memory model." * you've chosen to drop approximately from the wording to try and make your argument. * you've also chosen to substitute C11 in place of C++11. again presumably for the same reason. in fact the entire page does not mention C11 even once, it also goes on to highlight a specific deviation from C++11 with this excerpt "because of a deficiency in C++11's semantics for memory_order_consume" > There are also several patches merged in the past which do not use the term > "memory model aware". I would prefer to be consistent. i prefer the history represent the change. that previous submitters and reviewers lacked precision is not my concern nor is consistency a reason to continue documenting history incorrectly. i'm waiting to ack the change, it's up to you. you've already spent more time arguing than it would have taken to submit a v2 correcting the problem. > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
