----- On Apr 19, 2021, at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands baldr...@free.fr wrote: > Hi Mathieu, > > On 4/19/21 5:31 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> ----- On Apr 19, 2021, at 5:41 AM, Duncan Sands baldr...@free.fr wrote: >> >> >>> >>>> Quick question: should we use __atomic_load() or atomic_load_explicit() >>>> (C) and >>>> (std::atomic<__typeof__(x)>)(x)).load() (C++) ? >>> >>> If both are available, is there any advantage to using the C++ version when >>> compiling C++? As opposed to using the C11 one for both C and C++? >> >> I recently noticed that using C11/C++11 atomic load explicit is not a good >> fit for rcu_dereference, because we want the type to be a pointer, not an >> _Atomic type. gcc appears to accept a looser typing, but clang has issues >> trying to build that code. > > in the long run maybe the original variables should be declared with the > appropriate atomic type from the get-go.
Considering that rcu_dereference is public API, we would have to wait until we do a major soname ABI bump _and_ an API break to do that, which I am very reluctant to do, especially for the API break part. Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
