Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Implement Concurrency6 package -- split out Concurrency7 #791
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Implement Concurrency6 package -- split out Concurrency7 #791
Changes from 6 commits
fb3c5e7
20bae20
14b7c61
3259d17
9ee2af6
1ed65cf
a19965e
8f5e02c
46b6fc9
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
This file was deleted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Are the
atomic_..
access functions alway guaranteed to be function calls and not macros? Could we get false positives for this query if a standard library decided to implement a macro which did access a field? In general the C library can be implemented with functions or macros. Or, in practice do we expect all standard libraries to implement this using a function call?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we don't have to worry about this in practice, for a few reasons. Here's part 2 of a very interesting blog post from RedHat about locking vs lock free atomics, and some of the features in
atomic.h
.It seems all current atomic implementations are lock free, and a locking implementation may never exist. It's easier to make lock free atomic pointers. Additionally, an
atomic s
is of types
so something likes->mutex
would require extra effort to support in the language, and implementations would probably instead use a magic builtin compiler function e.g.__get_mutex(s)
than add support for a magics->mutex
on anint
type, etc.I'm happy to make this more defensive, though, so it doesn't bite us.