On 08/11/2011 02:42 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> The names for the previous set implies the fetch is done before the
> operation, so the new ones simply drop the fetch and simply use the
> operation name. I found sync_mem_op_fetch slightly less clear.
Really? I guess I'm pretty used to that, and it also makes it
abundantly clear what the difference between s_m_fetch_add and
s_m_add really is.
On balance I think we're better off sticking closer to the
original __sync_{fetch_op,op_fetch} names.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this naming?
Otherwise the patch looks ok.
r~
