On 09.05.2020 18:51, Christos Zoulas wrote: > I am with Martin here. This belongs in pkgsrc and not in base. There is > an overhead using libatomic and we should not be penalizing everyone. > There are very few cases where applications should be using raw atomics, > and in these situations the applications should be making concious > architectural choices. OK. I will try to find out whether we can get a portable implementation for GCC + Clang, ideally standalone. LLDB will be patched to avoid atomics. In order to avoid analysis whether the local libatomic modifications are right, I will submit them upstream to LLVM. The futex assisted locking part will be upstreamed once we will make the interface public. If we will revisit this politics again, we will have a better starting point (ideally just copying verbatim libatomic into src/lib/).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature