[cfe-dev] atomic intrinsics
Eric Christopher
echristo at apple.com
Wed Oct 6 12:54:01 PDT 2010
On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:12 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2010, at 2:54 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 6, 2010, at 9:19 AM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In the hopes of clarification, I've put three design descriptions up at:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://libcxx.llvm.org/atomic_design.html
>>>>>
>>>>> A and/or B is what Eric proposed. C is what I've been working toward. A is my preference. But I can't implement A without buy-in from the front end team. Heck, I can't actually implement any of them without said buy-in. :-) I chose C originally because that was where I thought I could most likely get buy-in.
>>>>
>>>> To be more specific for A:
>>>>
>>>> The front end handles every intrinisic listed, and the library provides a default and unoptimized implementation. The back end will provide a better optimized implementation if it can, otherwise falling back to a call to the library function.
>>>
>>> In the above sentence I presume "the library" refers to compiler_rt, otherwise the clang would be tied to libc++.
>>
>> Either/or. It depends on whether you want these intrinsics to be generally useful or tied to the implementation of <atomic>.
>
> I think if we do a good job with this, other implementations will follow. Therefore I recommend compiler-rt (similar to dealing with complex arithmetic, count leading zeros, etc.)
Sure :)
You get to write it either way ;)
-eric
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list