From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by server2.sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA7FF3877009 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 15:42:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jAXDW-0004wx-NG for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:02:03 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-Spam-Level: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:59043 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jAXDW-0004rb-Dc for gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:02:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1583578921; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:autocrypt:autocrypt; bh=VwntsfJzWPj+Cn1O1uTnt+wPlriK+dn3XaNKLylB80o=; b=VGljeh/TCGPsia7Dvj0JPZzcrrm01MKVIhqxl1Xu+E38CthcF7e15nYRVfoGA+8t7D2kOg xaMFArjYgSLOt4QOJ1P6MJUibxjJfvQz0RfsW90BaKellqeWzpw22oOE7fSeFoUIluHWAU 6ndAlRnJBSWKfAxuJlSYAViogUzynBo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-260-I8gk5ekvPGCmOgRtY9jVaQ-1; Sat, 07 Mar 2020 06:00:43 -0500 X-MC-Unique: I8gk5ekvPGCmOgRtY9jVaQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBF5B800D50; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 11:00:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zarquon.pink (unknown [10.33.36.158]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4DB98AC39; Sat, 7 Mar 2020 11:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Should atomic_xxx() functions reject not-_Atomic() arguments ? To: Jonathan Wakely , Chris Hall Cc: gcc-help References: <72f6344e-d8b2-bab4-b047-63e298063492@gmch.uk> <76f5d98b-affc-111b-5493-2557f8facaf1@gmch.uk> <02d60fa2-0671-31c3-3d4a-1749eb0a6c7b@gmch.uk> From: Andrew Haley Autocrypt: addr=aph@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBEoRZWsBCACUiFkb5YgfOfTHmzkESkfmTri14VX9UKdv4TUu9l9S6gFKf56ihWChiG8H pQ6CDTb5uqtZCWBNXoqcC2uCR0SCnWGk46tAW9dO0roEjoP+6AgbY4V5xUZt963XONYu1gnN EDQPB1QKN5L3PCMn0Dwnl1F6Of5BMPc+ErXr2BuMAG5Rb9QJPuWEjP4rMJdQIxeVkSk7oTnm rQJnDPF3WPimgwtaDGC17lZLwt4U9az9PobZxFH8lphexrwGdZX8qxQZEs9qfpW/wY/KFbRf bzSGNJlFd3X1liTofZQpNv+hloOS0/C1xLOQea4nCWlRZHiVpLywrmk0e1aFjqPNVN7NABEB AAG0HUFuZHJldyBIYWxleSA8YXBoQHJlZGhhdC5jb20+iQE3BBMBCAAhBQJKEWYCAhsDBQsJ CAcDBRUKCQgLBRYCAwEAAh4BAheAAAoJEKXNYDUzL6ZxTh8H/0gYx++/zE2Fhqr9Xc7rwN5f YF1bS8wnvOVNNS+IVoycRR7FMLFXEnokCoAw7ccG0M3hOrQDa3tojn9NpBEZ1xA45gIfTWcP kx8nfgTHK8T1Eu7DRDDZOiSKmq5Y2mozbgarL+AIe/6dppbRyKz3a/jNKzhj060HGKDpJ/65 TgTGtTsefW6I4/oyfhXX2ODWHdKBuGO0hTIfu+ofS3oRZnpq+fImA1s9ZAHLbGQ4iAxXsiM7 +aueKLU9a8smQvjWZSzDEEyEe9z4uZrL2LV9y+O69GpCIsQRIYNtNwTEyEEInT6EQT4evR6q WJTtzdcfA8161gnmlxEOPdMUA0PC9xy5AQ0EShFlmwEIAJ7tS9BC28YJNpKVvxL49WFgTKbU angZnBnnkKVbDMw06DbLQVFu4mEhVfvvtukXIPEg41v+M2j9xM4KDeqUbubOSvQtvUef5cKU 04j4vWir5u2vgPbHOWZWbKzaZk1ve5Jf1fnkuAsk3rXd/jAendfTGXMppWGQreEQ4OGrP+LP 4xO9ZhjOW8+/YmzlA2MhuoW+hsUkboxOqqq0wwXIIQf8aoPv3GrCMZ+NHbc4JM7zhlCDboyQ /XRttUz36TqwPkE66iEREeXZ1f+iWutSP/+UvkrErZbCEKVz2FhmVAGf3OOvbnv6NyXPDEKx yyHKJ+aoJsX/t7G2IvcieRERxVcAEQEAAYkBHwQYAQgACQUCShFlmwIbDAAKCRClzWA1My+m cWNBCACUgT/XjBKTYwFkvf8AmV3d8FTz2aBwbNGZTEQ+ClZLD9UbLuffGfXlvi7qRJviDOSM 3vd4df7J+yZs08oNYCkbXlqhPbA7giKVQ4I6CfCbYEL9U454gr4gIQ3IMgKQlxYaxAD6EwQk JzMUSAu0kLTjX6e35FHdWmf2VHR6NbyuV5O/yzf/3iNallmocZIK5I0zY5ndbptd4vEWX4Kd R6d5D1AZrsnlLoFkIPR0WZfzfPtwiW6WVm6upSOQXEEA4YH3sNEFyywihqbp88Fx7BRKRtIS 27/FmbZjZ70N1rA99ld8cGmMha+ylFs4gBmDIpvKFLxlCiZFH7qEnyv4b73q Message-ID: <0da8efac-dd6a-f250-97fa-ee322b994961@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2020 11:00:39 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 207.211.31.120 X-BeenThere: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-help mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 15:42:54 -0000 On 3/6/20 5:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 16:17, Chris Hall wrote: > >> FWIW: clang gets this right, and where the Standard says a parameter >> must be an _Atomic(foo_t)* [for a standard atomic_xxx()], clang rejects >> foo_t* arguments. > > It's not clear to me that C actually requires it to be rejected, or if > it's just undefined (in which case GCC's decision to accept it and do > the obvious thing is OK). Except in pedantic mode. I remember there was a move to actually permit this in C++: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4013.html This seems obviously right to me... -- Andrew Haley (he/him) Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. https://keybase.io/andrewhaley EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671