From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-01 14:24:24
On 2020-06-01 15:07, degski wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 at 06:18, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> On 2020-06-01 13:50, degski wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 16:05, Andrey Semashev via Boost
> > <boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>
> <mailto:boost_at_[hidden] <mailto:boost_at_[hidden]>>> wrote:
> >
> >Â Â Â The "address-free"
> >Â Â Â term comes from the C++ standard, but the resulting names
> seem a bit
> >Â Â Â long. Maybe there are better suggestions?
> >
> >
> > What about "global_"-prefix or "_system"-post-fix ("_sys")?
>
> Hmm, that doesn't quite communicate the difference from the default
> operations.
>
>
> On the assumption that the std-post-fixes have already extensively been
> bike-shedded, any alternative will likely be a compromise between length
> and descriptiveness, so your 'hmmm ...' is natural, I'm thinking about
> words around 'virtual memory' (because that's where the non-local
> addresses come from), while "_virtual" is out of the question.
Many platforms use the term "physical address" to describe the
underlying key source. However, wait_physical_address is not really
better than wait_address_free.
I've also considered "_pshared" suffix, which comes from POSIX, but the
address-free operations can also be useful within the same process, when
the atomic object is mapped at multiple addresses.