From: Frank Plowman <post@frankplowman.com> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] compat/atomics/win32: improve similarity to stdatomic.h Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2023 10:54:21 +0100 Message-ID: <0C144738-16AE-4962-B3D7-6A3CC7A8B1E6@frankplowman.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <10443116.5V0ZpFB1Yi@noel> > On 9 Apr 2023, at 09:59, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote: > > Le mercredi 5 avril 2023, 18:26:29 EEST Frank Plowman a écrit : >> Some preliminary info: >> * The win32 atomic compatibility header is based on VLC's (c91e72ed52). This >> patch makes the header more in line with what it was before they got rid of >> this way of doing things: >> https://code.videolan.org/videolan/vlc/-/blob/ce150f3849cebe97bc7fc028674d3 >> c7f8c73f64d/include/vlc_atomic.h >> * The Windows API does not support atomic >> operations on 8-bit types and only has functions for atomic operations on >> 16-bit types on Windows Desktop. > > FWIW, Windows atomic wait/notify system call functions support 8- and 16-bit > types, so I would expect that there is a mean to perform atomic load/store/ > exchange/compare-exchange too. The functions for 16-bit atomic operations do exist and have been supported by Windows Desktop and Server versions since around 2003, however support for non-Desktop/Server platforms seems to only have been introduced with UWP in 2019. I have since found there are also 8-bit interlocked variable access functions (the links to them in the documentation were missing). These were only added in Windows Desktop 8 and Windows Server 2012 however. These could be used, but at the cost of dropping support for some old/obscure systems. > >> * Makes atomic types the same size as their non-atomic counterparts. >> Previously, all atomic types were intptr_t to get around the lack of 8- and >> 16-bit atomic operations. This could lead to overreads. Now, each atomic >> type is the same size as its non-atomic counterpart, in line with the C11 >> specification. > > There are no requirements in C11 that atomic variables have the same size as > their non-atomic-qualified equivalent. It is not clear what you mean here. While not a requirement, the specification does say atomic types and their corresponding regular types "should have the same size whenever possible”. This is an alternative way I see we could support 8- and 16-bit atomic types though. > I also don't know what you mean by overread. If you don't want values to > overflow their specified boundaries, the "correct" approach is to mask the > excess bits (like how compilers implement small atomics on RISC-V). I think I was a bit confused writing this to be honest. The functions where this was a potential problem are atomic_compare_exchange_* as they take a pointer to a non-atomic type. This point was nullified however as atomic_compare_exchange_strong was defined as a function rather than a macro. The patch allows atomic_compare_exchange_strong to be defined as a macro taking various sized types, making it easier to use. Previously, the following code atomic_int atomic = 0; int regular = 0; atomic_compare_exchange_strong(&atomic, ®ular, 0); would produce a compilation error when compiled with 64-bit MSVC (where ints are 32 bits). The snippet above is how I would expect most developers to try to use the function - having to define regular as an intptr_t seems unintuitive and other typical implementations of stdatomic.h require an int. Thanks for your feedback. I will produce a second version of the patch including support for 8- and 16-bit atomic types. I see two ways of doing this: 1. Defining the 8- and 16-bit atomic types as 32-bit types and implementing their operations using the 32-bit interlocked variable access functions. 2. Defining the 8- and 16-bit atomic types as 8- and 16-bit types respectively, and implementing their operations using the 8- and 16-bit interlocked variable access functions. I lean towards 1. as 2. would require dropping support for Windows Desktop 7/Windows Server 2008 and earlier. The disadvantage of approach 1. is that atomic_compare_exchange_* won't work for 8- and 16-bit types. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-10 9:54 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-04-05 15:26 Frank Plowman 2023-04-09 8:59 ` Rémi Denis-Courmont 2023-04-10 9:54 ` Frank Plowman [this message]
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=0C144738-16AE-4962-B3D7-6A3CC7A8B1E6@frankplowman.com \ --to=post@frankplowman.com \ --cc=ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone: git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \ ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com public-inbox-index ffmpegdev Example config snippet for mirrors. AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git