Re: Safe to use stdatomic.h?

["brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 04:18:20PM -0400, Ben Peart wrote:
> My college Jeff is working on a patch series to further parallelize the
> loading of the index.  As part of that patch, it would be nice to use the
> atomic_fetch_add function as that would be more efficient than creating a
> mutex simply to protect a variable so that it can be incremented.  I haven't
> seen any use of atomics yet in Git, nor anything that includes
> <stdatomic.h>.
> 
> GCC has supported them since 4.9 and Clang has supported them by default
> since 3.3.  Are there any compilers currently in use by Git that don't
> support these C11 functions?

At work, we're compiling for CentOS 6 and 7.  CentOS 7 only has GCC 4.8,
and CentOS 6 has something much older.  This is code we ship to
customers, so we can't rely on them having devtoolset installed for
newer GCC.

I could support the argument for ditching RHEL/CentOS 5 support, but I
expect other people might disagree.  After all, we're still targeting
C89.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 868 bytes --]