Re: AtomicCounter::is_always_lock_free on armel

[Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>]

On 07/11/2019 17:56, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 10:18:06AM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > I don't understand your "Given the introduced AtomicCounter is used
> > later..." reasoning above, but commented at
>
> Obviously I meant
>
> static AtomicCounter gnEnterCount;
>
> which comes later (and wasn't there before)
> and uses the using AtomicCounter = [...] definition, so
> #ifdef'ing the whole block out would have been more invasive.

Ah.  What I'd meant was something like

> #if ...
> using AtomicCounter = std::atomic<std::make_unsigned_t<std::sig_atomic_t>>;
> static_assert(AtomicCounter::is_always_lock_free);
> #else
> using AtomicCounter = volatile std::make_unsigned_t<std::sig_atomic_t>;
> #endif