[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/8] use GCC's C11 atomic builtins for test

[Honnappa Nagarahalli]

<snip>

> >
> > > >
> > > > As I mentioned earlier in this thread, GCC supports 2 types of
> > > > atomics. "Use GCC atomic builtins" does not help distinguish
> > > > between them. In "GCC's C11 atomic builtins" - "C11" indicates
> > > > which atomics we are using, "atomic builtins" indicates that we
> > > > are NOT using APIs from stdatomic.h
> > >
> > > if you need a term to distinguish the two sets of atomics in gcc you
> > > can qualify it with "Memory Model Aware" which is straight from the gcc
> manual.
> > "Memory model aware" sounds too generic. The same page [1] also makes
> it clear that the built-in functions match the requirements for the C11
> memory model.
> 
> allow me to put your interpretation of the manual that you linked side by side
> with what the manual text actually says verbatim.
> 
> your text from above
>   "built-in functions match the requirements for the C11 memory model."
> 
> the actual text from your link
>   "built-in functions approximately match the requirements for the C++11
> memory model."
> 
> * you've chosen to drop approximately from the wording to try and make
>   your argument.
I am not sure how this makes a difference to our arguments. For ex: there are no other built in functions that "exactly" match the C++11 memory model supported by GCC.

> 
> * you've also chosen to substitute C11 in place of C++11. again
>   presumably for the same reason.
> 
> in fact the entire page does not mention C11 even once, it also goes on to
> highlight a specific deviation from C++11 with this excerpt "because of a
> deficiency in C++11's semantics for memory_order_consume"
I do not have a problem to call it C++11. IMO, calling it "GCC's C++11 ..." will address this deviation and the approximation.

> 
> > There are also several patches merged in the past which do not use the term
> "memory model aware". I would prefer to be consistent.
> 
> i prefer the history represent the change. that previous submitters and
> reviewers lacked precision is not my concern nor is consistency a reason to
> continue documenting history incorrectly.
Ok. As I mentioned, it is just my preference.

> 
> i'm waiting to ack the change, it's up to you. you've already spent more time
> arguing than it would have taken to submit a v2 correcting the problem.
I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. You are trying to correct few mistakes here (I truly appreciate that) and I am trying to explain my POV and making corrections as needed. I am sure we will conclude soon.

> 
> >
> > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html