Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] (op)_and_test naming
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-26 15:40:59
On 01/26/18 18:20, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Andrey Semashev wrote:
>> But my point is that optimizations like these are generally
>> unreliable, and if you really want to have the best possible code then
>> you should better write it in a way so the compiler has less
>> opportunity to screw up.
> If we adopt this philosophy, shouldn't there be `opaque_` and
> `_and_test` increments and decrements, too? `lock inc [r]` instead of
> `lock add [r], 1`, or even `mov eax, 1; lock add [r], eax` if the
> compiler can't be trusted to optimize, which we assume.
To some extent, I'm already doing this:
In general though, there has to be a reasonable balance between the
library usability and efficiency. I think the current interface is quite
close to it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk