News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by RossBencina on Friday March 02, 2018 @02:27AM (#16499767)
I think the ISO C and C++ definition of memory_order_consume will need to be fixed first. Perhaps recent progress has been made, but see for example "C++ P0371R1: Temporarily discourage memory_order_consume" and references therein:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p037...

Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by amelius on Friday March 02, 2018 @05:44AM (#16500468)
Maybe the best thing to do is to write a really, really, really good test suite for the C11 compiler first.
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by GSGSGS on Friday March 02, 2018 @11:05AM (#16502625)
I think u can propose it for C22
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by saas_co_de on Friday March 02, 2018 @06:58AM (#16500778)
From reading the article it seems they present many negatives and no benefits.
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by based2 on Thursday March 01, 2018 @01:24PM (#16494619)
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by phkahler on Thursday March 01, 2018 @03:18PM (#16495814)
From June 15, 2016. They reference GCC 7.1 as being a year away...
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by Someone on Friday March 02, 2018 @03:50AM (#16500031)
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/:

  GCC 7.1
      May 2, 2017 (changes, documentation)
Pretty close.
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by noobermin on Friday March 02, 2018 @02:22AM (#16499754)
Is this a thing now?
Re:Time to move to C11 atomics? (2016) by noobermin on Friday March 02, 2018 @01:06PM (#16504099)
Downvotes? I merely meant to ask if linux implemented C11 atomics or not...