Project about Atomic Operations

Chris Johns chrisj at
Tue Mar 27 22:37:54 UTC 2012

On 28/03/12 3:31 AM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Ralf Corsepius
> <ralf.corsepius at>  wrote:
>> On 03/26/2012 06:19 PM, Thomas Doerfler wrote:
>>   This would mean, if C11 should be adopted for RTEMS, I'd recomment RTEMS to
>> implement an RTEMS-specific wrapper layer, which optionally and
>> conditionally may utilize c11-atomics as one potential implementation option
>> underneath.
> I said this already. Sebastian responded that adding yet another
> atomics API seems iffy. I'm still mostly in favor of an RTEMS API
> though, which could wrap the FreeBSD atomics or use C11 atomics or use
> custom implementations of the ASM for targets supported by neither.

I am also in favour of an RTEMS API. The thinner the better but that may 
be something that evolves in time.

This is a GSoC project so we should attempt to contain the complexity 
and scope so reasonable outcomes can be set and met.


More information about the users mailing list