On 02/08/2012 10:23 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 8 February 2012 13:06, Andrew MacLeod<amacl...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 02/08/2012 05:54 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely<jwakely....@gmail.com>
wrote:
Should they be?
Yes. Esp. also the deprecation of the __sync builtins.
Yes, I meant to do that last week, but instead it's this week :-P Gerald
had pinged me about it a while ago.
Great, thanks - I was thinking about adding a line to the C++11
improvements in the libstdc++ section mentioning the new
implementation of<atomic>, do you think it's worth it?
Sure. There are 2 benefits for c++ now
- We can compile atomic objects of any arbitrary size/type now.
Previously there was a compiler error if it was not an integer class
that mapped to a supported size of lock-free __sync call. Now a user
POD that is the same size as a supported integer will use the lock free
instructions.
- If there is not a lock free sequence it becomes a library call.
Although this release does not include an atomic library, I have made a
sample source file available on the wiki which can be compiled and
linked with code to resolve those library calls (using a locked
implementation) Its located in external library section of the wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM
Andrew
