Am 10/20/2023 um 8:13 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 06:00:19PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
Am 10/20/2023 um 3:57 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 11:29:24AM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
Am 10/19/2023 um 6:39 PM schrieb Paul E. McKenney:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 12:11:58PM +0200, Jonas Oberhauser wrote:
Hi Paul,
[...]
The compiler is forbidden from inventing pointer comparisons.
TIL :) Btw, do you remember a discussion where this is clarified? A quick
search didn't turn up anything.
This was a verbal discussion with Richard Smith at the 2020 C++ Standards
Committee meeting in Prague. I honestly do not know what standardese
supports this.
Richard Smith
Then this e-mail thread shall be my evidence for future discussion.
I am sure that Richard will be delighted, especially given that he
did not seem at all happy with this don't-invent-pointer-comparisons
rule. ;-)
Neither am I :D
He can voice his delightenment or lack thereof to me if we ever happen
to meet in person.
I think this tiny rewrite makes it much more clear. Specifically it tells *why* the text is historical (and why we maybe don't need to read it anymore).
Good point! I reworked this a bit and added it to both HISTORICAL
sections, with your Suggested-by.
The new version looks good to me!
The longer-term direction, perhaps a few years from now, is for the
first section to simply reference rcu_dereference.rst and for the second
section to be removed completely.
Sounds good to me, but that doesn't mean we need to compromise the
readability in the interim :)
Some compromise is needed for people that read the document some time
back and are looking for something specific.
Yes. But the compromise should be "there's a blob of text other people don't
need to read", not "there's a blob of text that will leave other people
confused".
Fair enough in general, but I cannot promise to never confuse people.
This is after all memory ordering. And different people will be confused
by different things.
You can say that twice. In fact I suspect this is not the first time you
say that :))
jonas
