Re: [RFC 2/2] rust: sync: Add atomic support

Benno Lossin
2024-06-14T21:22:56Z

On 14.06.24 16:33, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 11:59:58AM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:05 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com> 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,
>
> The truth is I don't know ;-) I don't have much data on which one is
> better. Personally, I think AtomicI32 and AtomicI64 make the users have
> to think about size, alignment, etc, and I think that's important for
> atomic users and people who review their code, because before one uses
> atomics, one should ask themselves: why don't I use a lock? Atomics
> provide the ablities to do low level stuffs and when doing low level
> stuffs, you want to be more explicit than ergonomic.

How would this be different with `Atomic<i32>` and `Atomic<i64>`? Just
because the underlying `Atomic` type is generic shouldn't change
this, right?

---
Cheers,
Benno