Re: Trying out <stdatomic.h>

On Monday, September 14th, 2026 at 3:02 PM, Greg Burd <greg(at)burd(dot)me> wrote:

>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026, at 2:48 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 10.09.26 16:10, Greg Burd wrote:
> >> 1. Is an opt-in, default-off second implementation worth carrying at
> >> all? Tom's concern was that this not become The Only Way, hence the
> >> default. If the answer is no, that's fine and I'll stop pushing.
> >
> > Depends on what the plan in the long term is. Just having another
> > variant available at compile time doesn't accomplish much by itself.
> > Except that we'd now have even more code to maintain. What are we
> > asking people to do with it? Are we asking for testing? (What kind?)
> > What do we do when the testing is complete?
> >
> > Personally, I think a possible valuable outcome would be that we don't
> > have to maintain our own atomics library at all anymore, and just rely
> > on the compiler. This would require, most likely, some intermediate
> > steps and some testing and so on, but it would be good to clarify what
> > those steps are and whether this is indeed the goal.
>
> Hey Peter, thanks for the reply.
>
> I agree, high level end game goal is to move entirely to stdatomic and remove the atomics we've been maintaining.
>
> I'd imagined we could do that "testing and so on" while we leave them both in tree and then cut over mid-cycle if all looks good. I'm open to other ideas. I'm happy to try to split this up or ease it into the tree, suggestions welcome.
>
> best.
>
> -greg

Rebased on dca6a9e320e attached is v7, nothing significant changed. I've
left the 0003 patch which removes the non-stdatomic path in the set for
cfbot to chew on this round.

-greg