jfb added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17950#376965, @jfb wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D17950#376349, @jyknight wrote: > > > This conflicts with http://reviews.llvm.org/D17933. Most of this change > > also seems unnecessary. > > > > - I think the `is_always_lock_free` function should be defined based on the > > existing `__atomic_always_lock_free` builtin, not on defines (just like > > is_lock_free uses `__atomic_is_lock_free`, or `__c11_atomic_is_lock_free`, > > which is effectively an alias). > > - Then, the new `__GCC_ATOMIC_DOUBLE_LOCK_FREE` macros are unnecessary, > > unless we need to actually define a `ATOMIC_DOUBLE_LOCK_FREE` macro. > > - `__LLVM_ATOMIC_1_BYTES_LOCK_FREE` effectively duplicates > > `__GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_1`, so aren't needed. > > > Hmm, when I originally wrote the paper I though I'd tried that. Can't > remember why I went the other way, let me try out > `__atomic_always_lock_free`. That would indeed be much simpler as it would be > a pure libc++ change., thanks for raising the issue. Changed to what you suggested. Much nicer. I don't remember why I thought it was a bad idea. http://reviews.llvm.org/D17950 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
