Re: GCC interpretation of C11 atomics (DR 459)

[Ruslan Nikolaev via gcc]

Torvald, I think this discussion, indeed, gets pointless. Some of your 
responses clearly take my comments out of larger picture and context of the 
discussion.
One thing is clear that either implementation is fine with the standard 
(formally speaking) simply because the standard allows too much leeway on how 
you implement atomics. In fact, as I mentioned clang/llvm implements it 
differently. I find it as a weakness of the standard, actually, because for 
portable (across different compilers), the only thing you can more or less 
safely assume are single-width types.
Thank you for your output and discussion.