[cfe-dev] [RFC] Make <atomic> and <stdatomic.h> explicitly incompatible
Jon Chesterfield via cfe-dev
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Mar 7 15:35:36 PST 2018
That would be fine. The two languages expose roughly the same atomic
capability so I would be able to ignore atomic and use stdatomic throughout.
It's a bit sad to have the stable abi requirement ripple through the whole
C++ library in the form of using the nastier API but I expect that can be
wrapped. I should look into why <atomic> can't be such a wrapper.
Cheers
On 7 Mar 2018 17:54, "Volodymyr Sapsai" <vsapsai at apple.com> wrote:
With the implementation I have in mind, you won’t be able to use C atomic
types from C++ by default. But you should be able to define a macro and use
C atomics from C++. It will prevent you from using C++ atomics though. The
idea is to prevent mixing <atomic> and <stdatomic.h>, so only one of those
should be included.
The plan is to allow to use C atomics from C++ but with minor hurdles so
we'll guide people towards preferred approach C++ atomics from C++.
Thanks,
Volodymyr
On Mar 7, 2018, at 13:38, Jon Chesterfield via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
It is occasionally necessary to write a C header that uses atomic types
then include it in a C++ file. For example, implementing an abi defined in
C using C++.
This didn't quite work out of the box - I think I needed to #include
<atomic> inside extern "C" or some similar absurdity - but I did get valid
asm out of the result without modifying clang. Sadly I can't currently
access the source to check the details.
If this change goes ahead, would I no longer be able to use atomic types
from a C header in C++?
Cheers!
Jon
On 7 Mar 2018 16:15, "via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
Send cfe-dev mailing list submissions to
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cfe-dev-request at lists.llvm.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
cfe-dev-owner at lists.llvm.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cfe-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. [RFC] Make <atomic> and <stdatomic.h> explicitly incompatible
(Volodymyr Sapsai via cfe-dev)
2. Re: [RFC] Make <atomic> and <stdatomic.h> explicitly
incompatible (Shoaib Meenai via cfe-dev)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 12:32:05 -0800
From: Volodymyr Sapsai via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
To: Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Make <atomic> and <stdatomic.h> explicitly
incompatible
Message-ID: <C1343C23-7BE7-43A2-95BC-239F410913D8 at apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello all,
Currently atomics are available in C through <stdatomic.h> and in C++
through <atomic>. These headers have some common names, so using both of
them in the same translation unit usually doesn’t work. The downside is
that in some cases diagnostic can be overly verbose and overwhelming. For
example, compiling just 2 lines
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <atomic>
results in 68 errors.
I am proposing to make these headers explicitly incompatible, so we have
just a single error telling so instead of multiple errors. What do you
think?
Alternative solution is to make these headers compatible. But the consensus
seems to be that it’s not the right solution. See
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26376 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D26376> for more
details. There is also a proposal P0943R0: Support C atomics in C++ <
http://open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p0943r0.html>. As far
as I can tell, my proposal doesn’t interfere with P0943R0 but will be
obsolete if that proposal is accepted. Regardless of the future development
I think it is still beneficial to have better diagnostics in the short term.
I am not providing concrete implementation yet, at first I want to know the
opinion of the community on the matter.
Thanks,
Volodymyr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/2018030
7/666af01c/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 21:15:02 +0000
From: Shoaib Meenai via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
To: Volodymyr Sapsai <vsapsai at apple.com>, Clang Dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Make <atomic> and <stdatomic.h>
explicitly incompatible
Message-ID: <43BFBEC0-0C03-4B7A-874F-62F562C9FDB5 at fb.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I'd be in favor of making them explicitly incompatible. I ran into this
recently, found the incompatibility quite surprising, and had to do a bunch
of research (looking at the relevant standards, doing experiments across a
bunch of compilers and standard libraries, etc.) to convince myself that it
was expected behavior. An explicit error would be super nice.
From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Reply-To: Volodymyr Sapsai <vsapsai at apple.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:32 PM
To: cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Make <atomic> and <stdatomic.h> explicitly
incompatible
Hello all,
Currently atomics are available in C through <stdatomic.h> and in C++
through <atomic>. These headers have some common names, so using both of
them in the same translation unit usually doesn’t work. The downside is
that in some cases diagnostic can be overly verbose and overwhelming. For
example, compiling just 2 lines
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <atomic>
results in 68 errors.
I am proposing to make these headers explicitly incompatible, so we have
just a single error telling so instead of multiple errors. What do you
think?
Alternative solution is to make these headers compatible. But the consensus
seems to be that it’s not the right solution. See
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26376<https://urldefense.proofpoin
t.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D26376&d=DwMF
aQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=f2XAC
hgmKGyURiNTGeNTF1t1Fpo5BLSqNdUKyYAZYeM&s=O1AIlpTPrgXe3-fXW3-
VqVGTAUhg2qKBozM1iOtQhbE&e=> for more details. There is also a proposal
P0943R0: Support C atomics in C++<https://urldefense.proofpo
int.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__open-2Dstd.org_jtc1_sc22_wg21_
docs_papers_2018_p0943r0.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3
MUw&r=o3kDXzdBUE3ljQXKeTWOMw&m=f2XAChgmKGyURiNTGeNTF1t1Fpo5
BLSqNdUKyYAZYeM&s=iHKcnTreK84QBWD-j_3_n7ww5ON1-EzKzni3NgSgiaY&e=>. As far
as I can tell, my proposal doesn’t interfere with P0943R0 but will be
obsolete if that proposal is accepted. Regardless of the future development
I think it is still beneficial to have better diagnostics in the short term.
I am not providing concrete implementation yet, at first I want to know the
opinion of the community on the matter.
Thanks,
Volodymyr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/2018030
7/a2ab09a8/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
------------------------------
End of cfe-dev Digest, Vol 129, Issue 36
****************************************
_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20180307/7d1b443a/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list