Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:19:22 +0100 From: Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Feature request: stdatomic.h and threads.h 2013/11/21 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:31:35AM +0100, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: >> Hi, >> >> http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2013/06/29/17 >> >> Is there a plan to add support for stdatomic.h and threads.h? > > Yes, but not before 1.0. stdatomic.h is probably not hard if you > assume GCC __sync_* builtins (or it could be written in an > arch-specific way), like for stdalign.h http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/tree/include/stdalign.h I use a few tricks to support atomic operations (with __sync_*), but C(11) has a huge backlog vs c++. > but threads.h is much more complicated and > involves ABI decisions where I'm partly waiting to see what glibc > does. > > Rich thx, Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.