On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:58:54PM +0000, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > <snip> > > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:10:47PM +0100, Morten Br�rup wrote: > > >>>> From: Mattias R�nnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 > > >>>> > > >>>> Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? > > >>>> Especially > > >>>> since there aren't any wrappers for the implicit variants. > > >>>> > > >>>> More to type, more to read. > > >>> > > >>> They have the "_explicit" suffix to make their names similar to > > >>> those in > > >> stdatomic.h. > > >>> > > >>> You might consider their existence somewhat temporary until C11 > > >>> stdatomics > > >> can be fully phased in, so there's another argument for similar > > >> names. (This probably does not happen as long as compilers generate > > >> slower code for C11 stdatomics than with their atomic built-ins.) > > >> > > >> yes, there was feedback at the time it was. > > >> > > >> * we should *not* have non-explicit versions of the macros > > >> * the atomic generic functions should be named to match C11 standard > > >> with a rte_ prefix. > > > This was mainly done to ensure that users think through the memory > > ordering they want to use. This also matches with the compiler atomic built- > > ins. Without explicit, it is sequentially consistent memory order. > > > > > > > "This" is referring to the first bullet only, correct? > > > > You don't have to distinguish between implicit and explicit if you only have > > explicit. > Agree on your thought. > > The '_explicit' was added to be aligned with the standard atomic API naming. > The thought was - if we are aligned on the names, it needs less explanation > for users.
well another benefit is that in the future if/when a decision is made to directly use the names from the standard it is most trivial to just strip the rte_ prefix tree wide.
