Gsoc2012: Atomic operation for RTEMS

Ralf Corsepius ralf.corsepius at
Wed Jun 6 03:45:45 UTC 2012

On 06/06/2012 03:46 AM, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 6/06/12 12:33 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> No, the "atomic_cpu_generic.h" should provide the type definitions for
>> reasonable architectures. It is good to have architecture specific types
>> like Atomic_Int, but I think on most architectures it will be "typedef
>> Atomic_Int int". For all architectures with straight forward type
>> definitions we can use "atomic_cpu_generic.h".
> This is a good idea.

What would this be useful for?

  I don't see any reasons to have typedefs for "Atomic types" on ordinal 
types or POSIX types, except of "API stylishness".

  More generally speaking, the only technical reason to have typedefs on 
ordinal types or POSIX types would be to cover "exotic" architectures, 
whose toolchains do not implement all of these types.

  In practice, nowadays, such architectures/toolchains are pretty rare 
to find.


More information about the devel mailing list