search for: p0190r0

Hello! A proposal (quaintly identified as P0190R0) for a new memory_order_consume definition may be found here: http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/consume.2016.02.10b.pdf As requested at the October C++ Standards Committee meeting, this is a follow-on to P0098R1 that picks one alternative and describes it in detail. This approach f...

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:15:16PM -0500, Tony V E wrote: > There's at least one easy answer in there: > > > ‎If implementations must support annotation, what form should that > annotation take?  P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]] > attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied > to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well > as C++.  ;-) > > If an implementation must support it, then it is not an annotation but a keyword. So no [[]] ...

...Kenney < paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:15:16PM -0500, Tony V E wrote: > > There's at least one easy answer in there: > > > > > ‎If implementations must support annotation, what form should that > > annotation take? P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]] > > attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied > > to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well > > as C++. ;-) > > > > If an implementation must support it, then it is not a...

...he standard to guarantee correctness without the added > syntax (or added optimization constraints that effectively assume all > functions were annotated). Your second sentence ("We can hopefully ensure...") does give me hope that we might be able to reach agreement. The intent of P0190R0 is to define a subset of operations where dependencies will be carried. Note that P0190R0 does call out comparisons as potentially unsafe. Thanx, Paul > On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Paul E. McKenney < > paulmck at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 19,...