From: "Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: "Tyler Retzlaff" <roretzla@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc: "Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
"Bruce Richardson" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>, <dev@dpdk.org>,
<techboard@dpdk.org>, <david.marchand@redhat.com>,
<Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com>
Subject: RE: C11 atomics adoption blocked
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2023 22:30:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87B10@smartserver.smartshare.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230816172554.GA20093@linuxonhyperv3.guj3yctzbm1etfxqx2vob5hsef.xx.internal.cloudapp.net>
> From: Tyler Retzlaff [mailto:roretzla@linux.microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2023 19.26
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 05:13:04PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas@monjalon.net]
> > > Sent: Monday, 14 August 2023 15.46
> > >
> > > mercredi 9 août 2023, Morten Brørup:
> > > > > From: Tyler Retzlaff [mailto:roretzla@linux.microsoft.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 8 August 2023 22.50
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 10:22:09PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
[...]
> > > > And what about C++ atomics... Do we want (or need?) a third
> variant
> > > using C++ atomics, e.g. "atomic<int> x;" instead of "_Atomic int
> x;"? (I
> > > hope not!) For reference, the "atomic_int" type is "_Atomic int" in
> C,
> > > but "std::atomic<int>" in C++.
> > > >
> > > > C++23 provides the C11 compatibility macro "_Atomic(T)", which
> means
> > > "_Atomic T" in C and "std::atomic<T>" in C++. Perhaps we can
> somewhat
> > > rely on this, and update our coding standards to require using e.g.
> > > "_Atomic(int)" for atomic types, and disallow using "_Atomic int".
> > >
> > > You mean the syntax _Atomic(T) is working well in both C and C++?
> >
> > This syntax is API compatible across C11 and C++23, so it would work
> with (C11 and C++23) applications building DPDK from scratch.
> >
> > But it is only "recommended" ABI compatible for compilers [1], so DPDK
> in distros cannot rely on.
> >
> > [1]: https://www.open-
> std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p0943r6.html
> >
> > It would be future-proofing for the benefit of C++23 based
> applications... I was mainly mentioning it for completeness, now that we
> are switching to a new standard for atomics.
> >
> > Realistically, considering that 1. such a coding standard (requiring
> "_Atomic(T)" instead of "_Atomic T") would only be relevant for a 2023
> standard, and 2. that we are now upgrading to a standard from 2011, we
> would probably have to wait for a very distant future (12 years?) before
> C++ applications can reap the benefits of such a coding standard.
> >
Since writing the paragraph above a few day ago, I have become wiser today [1]... It turns out that the "_Atomic(T)" syntax not only comes really into play with C++23, but it is directly relevant for C11. Everyone, please pardon the confusion the above paragraph might have caused!
[1]: http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87B0F@smartserver.smartshare.dk/
>
> i just want to feedback on this coding convention topic here (in
> relation to the RFC patch series thread) i think the convention of using
> the macro should be adopted now. the main reason being that it is far
> easier that an atomic type is a type or a pointer type when the '*' is
> captured as a part of the macro parameter.
>
> please see the RFC patch thread for the details of how this was
> beneficial for rcs_mcslock.h and how the placement of the _Atomic
> keyword matters when applied to pointer types of incomplete types.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-16 20:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-08 17:53 Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-08 18:23 ` Bruce Richardson
2023-08-08 19:19 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-08 20:22 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-08 20:49 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-09 8:48 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-14 13:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2023-08-14 15:13 ` Morten Brørup
2023-08-16 17:25 ` Tyler Retzlaff
2023-08-16 20:30 ` Morten Brørup [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87B10@smartserver.smartshare.dk \
--to=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=Honnappa.Nagarahalli@arm.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=roretzla@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).