On 6/14/24 6:24 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 06:03:37PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
On 6/14/24 2:59 AM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:05 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Does this make sense?
Implementation-wise, if you think it is simpler or more clear/elegant
to have the extra lower level layer, then that sounds fine.
However, I was mainly talking about what we would eventually expose to
users, i.e. do we want to provide `Atomic<T>` to begin with? If yes,
then we could make the lower layer private already.
We can defer that extra layer/work if needed even if we go for
`Atomic<T>`, but it would be nice to understand if we have consensus
for an eventual user-facing API, or if someone has any other opinion
or concerns on one vs. the other.
Well, here's one:
The reason that we have things like atomic64_read() in the C code is
because C doesn't have generics.
In Rust, we should simply move directly to Atomic<T>, as there are,
after all, associated benefits. And it's very easy to see the connection
What are the associated benefits you are referring to? Rust std doesn't
use Atomic<T>, that somewhat proves that we don't need it.
Just the stock things that a generic provides: less duplicated code,
automatic support for future types (although here it's really just
integer types we care about of course).
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
