Re: [boost] atomic_ops library

From: Chris Thomasson (cristom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-16 19:10:27

"Roland Schwarz" <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:455AFA4B.7010605_at_chello.at...
> Chris Thomasson wrote:
>> Here is how I define rules for my atomic<T>:
>>
>> Can't use any constructors, destructors, base classes, virtual functions,
>> or anything else that violates POD requirements.
>>
>> Can't use any operators
>
> Hmm, what is your rationale for this choice?

What are the memory barrier characteristics' of all the operators that make 
store/load to/from the user provided T POD type? I would assume they are 
naked... How would you define them?

> I would have expected that you will need the POD
> requirements only for type T, not for atomic<T>.

Template function API sounds better than atomic<T> class that holds a member 
of type T. Define a rule that states that T must be a POD, and must be a 
type that can be atomically modified by the target architecture. The latter 
can be handled with arch-specific template metaprogramming, the former can 
be handled with an undefined behavior clause.