On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 01:24:12PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Nico Williams: > > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:19:32AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > Maybe http://trac.mpich.org/projects/openpa/ would fit the bill? > >> > >> It seems to have trouble to keep up with new architectures. > > > > New architectures are not really a problem because between a) decent > > compilers with C11 and/or non-C11 atomic intrinsics, > > Not on Windows.
Windows has a family of functions for atomic addition, compare-and-swap, etcetera: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686360%28v=vs.85%29.aspx#interlocked_functions Solaris/Illumos has its own as well. Linux has several atomics libraries. And there are several open-source portable atomics libraries as well. I.e., between compiler non-C11 atomic intrinsics, C11 intrinsics, OS atomic function libraries, and portable open-source atomics libraries, we can cover almost all the bases. > > What's the alternative anyways? > > Using C++11. Sure, but only for a C atomics library for the rest of OpenSSL. So that makes five alternatives, plus the two stub implementations (one with global locks, one with no locking/atomics). Any platform not covered will get one of the stub implementations and its users will have to contribute a better implementation. We have a surfeit of options, not a dearth of them. I don't think lack of atomics primitives is remotely a concern. We should use atomic primitives in OpenSSL. Nico -- _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
