On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Kjetil Matheussen
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Kjetil Matheussen
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, atomics are not an official part of the C standard, only the C++
>> standard.
>
> Ouch. Sorry. Wrong. C11 has
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Kjetil Matheussen
wrote:
> Control of memory ordering and atomics are officially part of the C
>>
> and C++ languages since 2011. GCC already supported this when the ISO
>> standards was finalized. Microsoft and Clang started supporting
>
> Control of memory ordering and atomics are officially part of the C
>
and C++ languages since 2011. GCC already supported this when the ISO
> standards was finalized. Microsoft and Clang started supporting it in
> 2012. So, it's been pretty much portable since 2012. This is 2016.
> IMHO, it's
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 10:16:02AM +0100, Sebastian Gesemann wrote:
>
>> As I said, I consider JACK's ringbuffer implementation to be broken.
>> According to the C11/C++11 memory model there is nothing in the code
>>