Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Vlad Khorsun
23.03.2016 16:59, Jim Starkey wrote: > On 3/23/2016 5:04 AM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >> All, >> >> in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively than >> before. The question is: could we use standard features of C++11 or should >> choose some 3rd party library (such as

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Jim Starkey
On 3/23/2016 1:18 PM, Michal Kubecek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:59:20AM -0400, Jim Starkey wrote: >> Defining your own macro layer gives you cheap portability and a zero >> overhead implementation. > That's one side of it. The other is that for occasional contributors or > distribution

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Michal Kubecek
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:59:20AM -0400, Jim Starkey wrote: > > Defining your own macro layer gives you cheap portability and a zero > overhead implementation. That's one side of it. The other is that for occasional contributors or distribution support guys, it brings a lot of confusion. Like

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Dimitry Sibiryakov
23.03.2016 14:05, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > Telling true I suppose both will add atomic support to the moment of FB4 > release. > But as long as they did not... > I suppose we keep our AtomicPointer and AtomicCounter, just implement > them internally using C++11. For existing 2 exceptions we keep

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Jim Starkey
On 3/23/2016 5:04 AM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: > All, > > in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively than > before. The question is: could we use standard features of C++11 or should > choose some 3rd party library (such as libatomic_ops) for it ? > > The main

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Alex Peshkoff
On 03/23/2016 01:55 PM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: > 23.03.2016 11:19, Alex Peshkoff wrote: >> On 03/23/2016 12:04 PM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively than >>> before. The question is: could we use standard features of

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Paul Beach
> < Linux). > Is it a problem for us ?>> > > An interesting question, I do know of a few users who continue to use AIX and > HPUX and > who actively build on 2.5... Will we still have AIX and HPUX users by the > time we release > Firebird 4.0 - I don't know. <> Just an observation.

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Dimitry Sibiryakov
23.03.2016 12:18, Paul Beach wrote: > < Linux). > Is it a problem for us ?>> > > An interesting question, I do know of a few users who continue to use AIX and > HPUX and > who actively build on 2.5... Will we still have AIX and HPUX users by the > time we release > Firebird 4.0 - I don't know.

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Paul Beach
>> in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively than >> before. The question is: could we use standard features of C++11 or should >> choose some 3rd party library (such as libatomic_ops) for it ? >> >> The main concern about C++11 atomics is - if all platforms

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Vlad Khorsun
23.03.2016 11:19, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > On 03/23/2016 12:04 PM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >> All, >> >> in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively than >> before. The question is: could we use standard features of C++11 or should >> choose some 3rd party library (such

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Paul Beach
> Having just checked - Clang (LLVM) 3.5 is installed via XCode on my Mac. So thats OK. Paul --

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Alex Peshkoff
On 03/23/2016 12:04 PM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: > All, > > in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively than > before. The question is: could we use standard features of C++11 or should > choose some 3rd party library (such as libatomic_ops) for it ? > > The main

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Dimitry Sibiryakov
23.03.2016 10:13, Alex Peshkoff wrote: > The question was to people who aware - do compilers on MAC\HP\AIX\ARM > support C++11 atomics? If yes - absolutely no need in additional library. If these platforms don't support atomic ops, they have to emulate standard somehow. Or to be dropped from

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Alex Peshkoff
On 03/23/2016 12:06 PM, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 23.03.2016 10:04, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >> Opinions ? > I vote for C++11 standard. > That's not parliament to vote:) The question was to people who aware - do compilers on MAC\HP\AIX\ARM support C++11 atomics? If yes - absolutely no need

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Atri Sharma
+1 for a cross platform library On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Vlad Khorsun wrote: >All, > > in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively > than > before. The question is: could we use standard features of C++11 or should > choose

Re: [Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Dimitry Sibiryakov
23.03.2016 10:04, Vlad Khorsun wrote: > Opinions ? I vote for C++11 standard. -- WBR, SD. -- Transform Data into Opportunity. Accelerate data analysis in your applications with Intel Data Analytics

[Firebird-devel] Atomics

2016-03-23 Thread Vlad Khorsun
All, in new codebase (v4) we going to use atomic operations more intensively than before. The question is: could we use standard features of C++11 or should choose some 3rd party library (such as libatomic_ops) for it ? The main concern about C++11 atomics is - if all platforms where