From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-02 15:37:51
On 2020-06-02 17:28, Hans Dembinski via Boost wrote:
>> On 2. Jun 2020, at 11:21, Alexander Grund via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> That name cannot be used in Boost.Atomic as it is reserved for Boost.Interprocess.
>>> Atomics that are lock-free can already be used for inter-process communication, so a hypothetical boost::interprocess::atomic would largely duplicate boost::atomic. However, I'm open to the idea, if it is significantly different from boost::atomic.
>> The obvious solution then is to use boost::atomic::interprocess ;-)
> ... I was going to suggest the same :)
The problem with this is that the resulting name will be long and have
the potential of name clash with Boost.Interprocess.
Boost.Atomic types are currently defined in namespace boost::atomics and
then imported into namespace boost (so that people can use
boost::atomic<int> instead of boost::atomics::atomic<int>). Adding
namespace boost::atomics::interprocess would make it impossible to
import it into namespace boost as it would conflict with
Boost.Interprocess. So people will have to spell
boost::atomics::interprocess::atomic<int>, which is unfortunate.
There is an alternative to name the type differently, e.g.
boost::atomics::pshared_atomic<int>, though I'm not sure I like it
either. Or use a different name for the nested namespace instead of
interprocess (ipc? other suggestions?).
>> I do see value in having 2 different atomic types in different namespaces as the use case is different:
>> The "regular" atomic usually works. Once you need interprocess communication you use another type, not another member function.
> Agreed, having two different types has benefits:
> - you can prevent people to pass a boost::atomic where a boost::atomic::interprocess is needed (if that makes any sense..., do atomics ever appear in interfaces?)
> - you can make the intent clear in the implementation of a class or function
Yes, I can see the potential benefit of having a separate type for
inter-process. That would allow writing generic algorithms over
process-local and inter-process atomics. It's those naming details I'm
not quite happy about.
Also, and more importantly, given that atomics may potentially use
runtime detection of availability of lock-free operations, it isn't
clear what behavior should inter-process atomics have if the required
operations turn out to be unavailable in run time. This is not a problem
in the current implementation, as it always uses compile-time detection,
but I wouldn't want to prohibit runtime detection in the future.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk