<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
You folks do all the heavy lifting and thus are fully/well versed in
the syntax and phonetics of the grammar you choose, but to put it
bluntly if English became a chicken scratch language it never would
have developed fully [though other languages would challenge that
fully developed assertion on my part].<br>
<br>
<b>__clang_atomic_</b> is clearly readable and discernible, and I
could care less about saving a few bytes in characters. Most editors
can also make custom tags that trigger the entire string with a
simple combination of key-strokes for an action to be performed.<br>
<br>
This is one of the reasons I personally have a love/hate
relationship with Computer Science and another reason Mechanical
Engineering is my first and more beloved degree.<br>
<br>
It's also another reason I was glad to work at NeXT and Apple with
the knowledge that Objective-C is such a readable programming
language, unlike the chicken scratch often found in C/C++.<br>
<br>
Sincerely,<br>
<br>
- Marc J. Driftmeyer<br>
<br>
On 04/10/2012 05:08 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGCO0Kjo2Tg8h-zTMah7ZqJjYuKfzXCbxWr4V9LGecANYird9Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Howard
Hinnant <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:hhinnant@apple.com">hhinnant@apple.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Howard Hinnant
wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Apr 10, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:<br>
><br>
>> I want to call out this point:<br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Richard Smith
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> This approach, including the need to interpose in
front of <atomic> and <shared_ptr> (and any
other user of the atomics builtins in libstdc++) and
detect whether we're about to include a header from
libstdc++, seems sufficiently fragile that I'm still in
favour of introducing GNU-compatible builtins.<br>
>><br>
>> I think this is setting ourselves up for an
endless game of catchup. What is worse, our users will
suffer.<br>
>><br>
>> Version skew between libstdc++ and Clang is
inevitable. As a consequence, the advantages of being
maximally compatible with libstdc++ are only present when
we can be largely *forward* compatible. This seems
impossible if we have to intercept ever header to
reference a GCC builtin and introduce our wrapper for it.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> At a fundamental level, I am not yet comfortable
with Clang, after defining __GNUC__ and acting as a
heavily compatible compiler with GCC, going on to define
builtin functions which share the same name but
incompatible semantics with GCC builtins. This seems like
a recipe for a long string of puzzling compilation
failures, user frustration, and impeded adoption of Clang.<br>
>><br>
>> I think we should continue with the long standing
policy of, when reasonable and tenable, supporting the GCC
builtins with their names, and allowing users to not care.
Then, under a *different* naming pattern, and guarded by
proper __has_feature macros etc, we should provide
Clang-specific extensions which have the semantics we
would rather see.<br>
>><br>
>> While a realize this isn't ideal, and it requires
renaming currently supported intrinsics I see few options
left to us:<br>
>> 1) We haven't released with these intrinsics<br>
>> 2) GCC has released with its intrinsics<br>
>> 3) We failed to discuss our intrinsics
sufficiently with the GCC folks to get them to implement
the same set<br>
>> 4) GCC folks failed to discuss theirs with us
sufficiently to get us to implement the same set<br>
>> 5) We need something for Clang v3.1, or it is
instantly un-usable with GCC 4.7 and later.<br>
>><br>
>> I don't like any of this, and it isn't how I
would wish for things to proceed if I had it to do again,
but this is where we are. We need to realize that, today,
I cannot compile any meaningful C++98 code with the
default C++ standard library on Linux (after a distro
picks up GCC 4.7) and Clang. I do not think that is an
acceptable state to release Clang under.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps we need to stake out another namespace for
clang atomic intrinsics. Our current prefix is:<br>
><br>
> __atomic_<br>
><br>
> Suggestions:<br>
><br>
> __clang_atomic_<br>
> __clng_atmc_<br>
> _ClangAtomic_<br>
> _CLNGatomic_<br>
> _CLNG_ATM_<br>
> _ClngAtm_<br>
><br>
> The final suggestion has the same length as our
current prefix.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
Or even shorter: :-)<br>
<br>
__atomx_<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am quite lazy when it comes to typing, but perhaps here
is not the time to save characters. ;] I would vote:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>__clang_atomic_</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
or, based on the discussion between David and Richard,
perhaps:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>__c11_atomic_</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>to call out their close correspondance with the c11 spec.</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu">cfe-dev@cs.uiuc.edu</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Marc J. Driftmeyer<br>
Email :: <a href="mailto:mjd@reanimality.com">mjd@reanimality.com</a><br>
Web :: <a href="http://www.reanimality.com">http://www.reanimality.com</a><br>
Cell :: (509) 435-5212
</div>
</body>
</html>