From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-01 14:24:24
On 2020-06-01 15:07, degski wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 06:18, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> On 2020-06-01 13:50, degski wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 16:05, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>
> <mailto:boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>>> wrote:
> >Â Â Â The "address-free"
> >Â Â Â term comes from the C++ standard, but the resulting names
> seem a bit
> >Â Â Â long. Maybe there are better suggestions?
> > What about "global_"-prefix or "_system"-post-fix ("_sys")?
> Hmm, that doesn't quite communicate the difference from the default
> On the assumption that the std-post-fixes have already extensively been
> bike-shedded, any alternative will likely be a compromise between length
> and descriptiveness, so your 'hmmm ...' is natural, I'm thinking about
> words around 'virtual memory' (because that's where the non-local
> addresses come from), while "_virtual" is out of the question.
Many platforms use the term "physical address" to describe the
underlying key source. However, wait_physical_address is not really
better than wait_address_free.
I've also considered "_pshared" suffix, which comes from POSIX, but the
address-free operations can also be useful within the same process, when
the atomic object is mapped at multiple addresses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk