mesos-reviews mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Neil Conway" <neil.con...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Review Request 37876: stout: Replace GCC intrinsics with std::atomic.
Date Wed, 09 Sep 2015 18:03:06 GMT


> On Sept. 9, 2015, 5:16 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
> > 3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/fork.hpp, line 278
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/diff/1/?file=1057697#file1057697line278>
> >
> >     Some places in this review chain you use the provided typedefs `std::atomic_XXX`,
whereas elsewhere you provide the explicit specialization `std::atomic<int64_t>`.
> >     
> >     Can you put a review at the front of this chain to provide guidance for consistency
in the style guide regarding atomics? I would add examples and policies for:
> >     1. Always using the explicit specializations; or when to use the typedef over
the explicit (if you have a good argument for that)
> >     2. Why we use the explicit functions such as `store(X)` as opposed to the `operator=`
as we discussed in person.
> >     
> >     Once that's done, please make any changes required in the chain to stay consistent.

Thanks for the review, Joris!

This is a great point -- I'll update the style guide. As far as when to use the explicit specialization
over the typedef, I only used an explicit specialization when C++11 doesn't provide a typedef.
e.g., C++ doesn't provide std::atomic_int64_t, so I used std::atomic<int64_t> (the standard
provides std::atomic_fast_int64_t, which seems a bit painful to type/read). I don't have strong
feelings here, though: for example, you could argue that we should always use the explicit
specializations for the sake of consistency.


- Neil


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/#review98209
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 9, 2015, 4:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 9, 2015, 4:02 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and switched to 'mcypark'.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3326
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3326
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> MESOS-3326.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/3rdparty/stout/include/stout/os/posix/fork.hpp d43433aeab5a1a68ff76eb75416672fae456c70d

> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/37876/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Neil Conway
> 
>


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message