<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. I am not sure how this makes a difference to our arguments. For ex: there are no other built in functions that "exactly" match the C++11 memory model supported by GCC.
> > * 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" I do not have a problem to call it C++11. IMO, calling it "GCC's C++11 ..." will address this deviation and the approximation. > > > 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. Ok. As I mentioned, it is just my preference. > > 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. I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. You are trying to correct few mistakes here (I truly appreciate that) and I am trying to explain my POV and making corrections as needed. I am sure we will conclude soon. > > > > > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html
