Gsoc2012: Atomic operation for RTEMS
ralf.corsepius at rtems.org
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
More information about the devel