[atomics.types.operations]p20's note makes incorrect assumptions about atomic representation
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- TeX
- Stars
- 221
- Forks
- 813
- Avg merge
- 16h 4m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 36
Description
[ Note: For example, the effect of
compare_exchange_strongisif (memcmp(this, &expected, sizeof(*this)) == 0) memcpy(this, &desired, sizeof(*this)); else memcpy(expected, this, sizeof(*this));— end note ]
This is wrong in a multitude of ways... not least of which is that that's not even atomic. But also this assumes that sizeof(atomic<T>) == sizeof(T), that the layout of an atomic directly contains a T, and so on.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start at the [atomics.types.operations] p20 note quoted in the issue and read the surrounding atomic operation wording. Verify the note against the stated atomic representation and compare_exchange semantics; done requires a maintainer-approved correction or removal that no longer makes the listed representation and atomicity assumptions.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100