Gsoc2012: Atomic operation for RTEMS

[wei.a.yang at gmail.com]

在 2012-6-6，11:45，Ralf Corsepius <ralf.corsepius at rtems.org> 写道：

> 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".
Yeah, Ralf. You are right. I select the "Atomic type" that mostly because of the API stylishness. In fact using the basic date types which are type defined based on date types supported by program language is also ok, such as uint_32.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Ralf
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel