Feedback-ID: ie0a040ee:Fastmail
Message-ID: <94c83f24-43cb-4a8b-b09b-42bd85ed7d65@eisentraut.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 12:23:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Trying out <stdatomic.h>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CA+hUKGKFvu3zyvv3aaj5hHs9VtWcjFAmisOwOc7aOZNc5AF3NA@mail.gmail.com>
 <536409d2-c9df-4ef3-808d-1ffc3182868c@iki.fi>
 <CA+hUKG+bub1T9TFLUAJHr+Z519VRgJS5tb10xBxEtJZRH8GXiA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: de-DE, en-US
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+hUKG+bub1T9TFLUAJHr+Z519VRgJS5tb10xBxEtJZRH8GXiA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/94c83f24-43cb-4a8b-b09b-42bd85ed7d65%40eisentraut.org>
Precedence: bulk

On 13.11.25 12:35, Thomas Munro wrote:
> It passes with VS 2022 on CI.  I had to skip some assertions about
> macros promising lock-free implementation, that it doesn't define in C
> mode yet.  They are definitely lock-free though[1], and the macros are
> defined for C++, and the same under the covers...  Perhaps
> feature/conformance macros won't be defined until a few remaining
> pieces (things we don't care about) are accessible from C?  (I see
> that Visual Studio 2026 has also just shipped a couple of days ago,
> not investigated.)

Note also that we still have buildfarm members with gcc <4.9, which is 
required for stdatomic.h/_Atomic there.

We could most likely resolve to get rid of them when the time comes, but 
let's not forget to plan that.