RE: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-31 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2024 16.53 > > On 2024-01-30 19:36, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 09:34:24PM +0100, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > >> On 2024-01-26 22:35, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:52:

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-31 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
On 2024-01-30 19:36, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 09:34:24PM +0100, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: On 2024-01-26 22:35, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:52:11AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] Sent: Friday, 26 January

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-30 Thread Tyler Retzlaff
On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 09:34:24PM +0100, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > On 2024-01-26 22:35, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: > >On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:52:11AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > >>>From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > >>>Sent: Friday, 26 January 2024 09.07 > >>> > >>>On 2024-01-

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-27 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
On 2024-01-26 22:35, Tyler Retzlaff wrote: On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:52:11AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] Sent: Friday, 26 January 2024 09.07 On 2024-01-25 23:10, Morten Brørup wrote: From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] Se

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-27 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
On 2024-01-26 11:52, Morten Brørup wrote: From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] Sent: Friday, 26 January 2024 09.07 On 2024-01-25 23:10, Morten Brørup wrote: From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 Why do rte_stdatomic.h funct

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-26 Thread Tyler Retzlaff
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:52:11AM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > > Sent: Friday, 26 January 2024 09.07 > > > > On 2024-01-25 23:10, Morten Brørup wrote: > > >> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > > >> Sent: Thursday, 25

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-26 Thread Tyler Retzlaff
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 04:58:54PM +, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:10:47PM +0100, Morten Br�rup wrote: > > From: Mattias R�nnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > > Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 > > > > Why do r

RE: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-26 Thread Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > > >> > >> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:10:47PM +0100, Morten Br�rup wrote: > From: Mattias R�nnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 > > Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? > Especially > since the

RE: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-26 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > Sent: Friday, 26 January 2024 09.07 > > On 2024-01-25 23:10, Morten Brørup wrote: > >> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > >> Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 > >> > >> Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suff

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-26 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
On 2024-01-26 02:37, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote: On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:10:47PM +0100, Morten Br�rup wrote: From: Mattias R�nnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? Especially since ther

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-26 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
On 2024-01-25 23:10, Morten Brørup wrote: From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? Especially since there aren't any wrappers for the implicit variants. More to type, more to read.

RE: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-25 Thread Honnappa Nagarahalli
> > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:10:47PM +0100, Morten Br�rup wrote: > > > From: Mattias R�nnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > > > Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 > > > > > > Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? > > > Especially > > > since there aren't any w

Re: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-25 Thread Tyler Retzlaff
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:10:47PM +0100, Morten Brørup wrote: > > From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > > Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 > > > > Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? > > Especially > > since there aren't any wrappers for the implic

RE: rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-25 Thread Morten Brørup
> From: Mattias Rönnblom [mailto:hof...@lysator.liu.se] > Sent: Thursday, 25 January 2024 19.54 > > Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? > Especially > since there aren't any wrappers for the implicit variants. > > More to type, more to read. They have the "_explicit" su

rte_atomic_*_explicit

2024-01-25 Thread Mattias Rönnblom
Why do rte_stdatomic.h functions have the suffix "_explicit"? Especially since there aren't any wrappers for the implicit variants. More to type, more to read. When was this API introduced? Shouldn't it say "experimental" somewhere?