Open jrhemstad opened 2 months ago
@gonzalobg @griwes
Here's a topic up for discussion:
volatile atomic_ref<T>
goes against the standard, however it appears that atomic_ref<volatile T>
is allowable simply by omission. Would this be sufficient for exposing MMIO?
volatile atomic
already serves its purpose for this as the volatile
qualifier isn't shallow. I don't think we need to add any extra behavior there as it should end up on any volatile codepaths.
atomic_ref
is allowable simply by omission. Would this be sufficient for exposing MMIO?
Yes, but see both https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue4069 and https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3508 .
atomic_ref is allowable simply by omission. Would this be sufficient for exposing MMIO?
Yes, but see both https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue4069 and https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3508 .
Ah perfect. Thanks for the references. I would much rather implement according to 4069 as selectively stripping and adding CV qualifiers on the user API would be a nightmare.
Originally posted by @gonzalobg in #1424