STINNER Victor added the comment: atomicv2.patch: > _Atomic int _value;
Why not using the atomic_int type from stdatomic.h here? > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html "__atomic_store_n(): The valid memory model variants are __ATOMIC_RELAXED, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, and __ATOMIC_RELEASE." I understand that _Py_atomic_store_explicit() only accept some values for order. An assertion should be added here, maybe for any implementation. Something like: #define _Py_atomic_store_explicit(ATOMIC_VAL, NEW_VAL, ORDER) \ (assert((ORDER) == __ATOMIC_RELAXED \ || (ORDER) == __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST \ || (ORDER) == __ATOMIC_RELEASE), \ __atomic_store_n(&(ATOMIC_VAL)->_value, NEW_VAL, ORDER)) Same remark for _Py_atomic_load_explicit(): "__atomic_load_n(): The valid memory model variants are __ATOMIC_RELAXED, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE, and __ATOMIC_CONSUME." ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue22038> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
