Hi, Kristian! On Jan 24, Kristian Nielsen wrote: > Sergey Vojtovich <[email protected]> writes: > > > +template <typename T, typename S= Atomic_type_triat<T, sizeof(T)> > class > > Atomic > > > + T operator++() { return add(1) + 1; } > > [lots and lots of more template code snipped] > > I am vetoing this. > > We really, _really_ do not want to package up the atomic stuff in even more > abstractions and API layers than we already have. > > Atomics and lock-free stuff is in itself plenty complicated. It is crucial > that one can at least see easily in the code what is going on, without also > having to spend effort to understand multiple layers of wrapping. > > As far as I can see, the only thing the templates do is hide stuff (like the > data type used and the wrapping in locks on platforms without atomic > support?), while what we need is to make those details clear to people reading > the code, not to hide them!
I partially agree. I don't like that a++; may be an atomic operation intenally. But I do like that one can write my_atomic_add(a, 1); // for example without explicitly specifying the bit width of the 'a'. This is pretty standard feature, it works even in assembler :) Regards, Sergei _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
