From: Bill Wade (bill.wade_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-01 08:27:34
> From: William Kempf [mailto:sirwillard_at_[hidden]]
> However, I still think we're just splitting hairs. Even though it
> may result in an extra lock, exchange() can be used to perform
> get/set. For performance reasons, yes, I can see adding get/set to
> my list, but I don't think we're talking about removing anything
> here. Or are we?
Back to the list I think we're talking about:
typedef ... atomic_t;
long increment(atomic_t& dest);
long decrement(atomic_t& dest);
long add(atomic_t& dest, long value);
long add(atomic_t& dest, const atomic_t& value);
long exchange(atomic_t& dest, long value);
long exchange(long& value, const atomic_t& value);
long compare_exchange(atomic_t& dest, long compare, long value);
I do think you should include
long get(atomic_t& dest);
void set(atomic_t& dest, long value);
which can be implemented in terms of the other functions, but may be
significantly faster in their "pure" form.
I would remove the second exchange. It looks like a verbose get() to me.
I think the "small" atomic class should provide no more than
with inc/decrement returning either zero-ness and/or sign of the result. I
think somebody said that some platforms only return zero-ness. This class
should be widely implementable.
A "larger" class can additionally provide compare_exchange and the first
add, but should not have an is-a relationship with the smaller class.
I don't know a fast way to implement the second add (which seems to need two
locks) on any Win32 platform.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk