Re: public barrier functions

[Tim Janik <timj imendio com>]

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Balazs Scheidler wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 22:41 +0100, Sebastian Wilhelmi wrote:

> > That would make it impossible to fix the corresponding implementations
> > also for already compiled programs, should bugs surface (which they
> > already did) and it would also make it impossible to guarantee, that all
> > programs really use the same implementation, i.e. with inline functions
> > one module could use the asm version (because gcc is used) and the
> > second module would use the mutex versions (because another compiler is
> > used). That would be very bad of course.
>
> That's a valid point but maybe it would be possible to request inlined
> implementations of some functions by the use of a preprocessor symbol,
> e.g.
>
> #define G_GLIB_USE_INLINE_FUNCS
> #include <glib.h>
>
> Of course this would only be possible if it is not a maintenance
> head-ache, e.g. the copied function bodies should not be copied, but
> autogenerated instead.
>
> Would something like this be accepted?

it could be a maintenance headache and produce subtle bugs because
different modules could then use different emchanisms to access an
atomic variable as sebastian outlined earlier in this thread.

if you want an inlined version for the hell of it, pick the implementation
specific for your processor & compiler out of gatomic.c, copy it into
your code and use it for your own atomic variables only. short of that,
you'll have to live with the overhead of a function call for every atomic
operation (this was deliberately decided when the atomic operations
where implemented).

> --
> Bazsi

---
ciaoTJ