<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8">
<title>P0943R1: Support C atomics in C++</title>
<style type="text/css">
html { line-height: 135%; }
ins { background-color: #DFD; }
del { background-color: #FDD; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<table>
        <tr>
                <th>Doc. No.:</th>
                <td>WG21/P0943R1</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
                <th>Date:</th>
                <td>2018-03-30</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
                <th>Reply-to:</th>
                <td>Hans-J. Boehm</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
                <th>Email:</th>
                <td><a href="mailto:hboehm@google.com">hboehm@google.com</a></td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
                <th>Authors:</th>
                <td>Hans-J. Boehm</td>
        </tr>
        <tr>
                <th>Audience:</th>
                <td>LEWG</td>
        </tr>
</table>

<h1>P0943R1: Support C atomics in C++</h1>
<p>
As we previously suggested in
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0063r0.html">P0063R0</a>,
it would be nice to have a real interoperability story for C atomics and C++ atomics.
In the interest of time, and since it appeared to be less essential and more controversial
than the rest of that proposal, this suggestion was not pursued further in later revisions
of that paper. Nonetheless, it remains a gaping hole in the interoperability story between
C and C++. The solution proposed here is based on one that has been used by Android
for several years.
<h2>The Problem</h2>
<p>
It is desirable to make C language header files directly usable by C++ code.
It is increasingly common for such header files to include declarations that
rely on atomics.
<p>
For example, a header may wish to declare a function that provides saturating
("clamped") addition on atomic integers. This can easily be implemented in the
common subset of C and C++, except that we have no convenient and portable way to
include the definition of names such as <code>atomic_int</code>, that are
defined in <code>&lt;atomic&gt;</code> in C++ and
in <code>&lt;stdatomic.h&gt;</code> in C.
<p>
The best we can currently
do in portable code is to use an explicit preprocessor test followed by conditional
inclusion of either <code>&lt;atomic&gt;</code> or <code>&lt;stdatomic.h&gt;</code>.
In the former case, we then have
to add <code>using</code> declarations to inject the required types and functions
into the global namespace. Thus we end up with something like
<blockquote>
<p>
<pre><code>
#ifdef __cplusplus
  #include &lt;atomic&gt;
  using std::atomic_int;
  using std::memory_order;
  using std::memory_order_acquire;
  ...
#else /* not __cplusplus */
  #include &lt;stdatomic.h&gt;
#endif /* __cplusplus */
...
int saturated_fetch_add(atomic_int *loc, int value, memory_order order);
</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<p>
This approach relies on
the currently implicit assumption or wish that the representation of C and C++
atomics are compatible.
<p>
Although certainly possible, this is very clumsy compared to the level of
interoperability we normally provide; for other language features we commonly
provide a C header file that can be included from C++, and provides
the necessary declarations. Here we propose to do the same for atomics.
<p>
The story here is somewhat confused by the fact that most of
the other <code>.h</code> compatibility headers currently only appear in
the deprecated features section under D.5 C standard library headers [depr.c.headers].
A recent paper,
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0619r2.html">P0619</a>
proposes to undeprecate them. We strongly agree with this paper that the
current deprecation of these headers does not reflect reality.
Many of them are widely used and heavily relied upon.
This proposal assumes that at least some of those headers will be preserved.

<h2>History</h2>
<p>
C and C++ atomics were originally designed together. The original design ensured that the
non-generic pieces of the C++ atomics library were usable as a C library. This interoperability
story became less clear as a result of several later decisions:
<ul>
<li> WG14 adopted, in addition to the non-generic parts of the C++ library, a
more generic facility, relying on the <code>_Atomic</code> type qualifier,
and the <code>_Atomic(T)</code> type specifier. This happened late enough in the
C++11 standardization cycle that there wasn't much of an opportunity for C++
adjustments.
<li> C++ has never defined what it means to include <code>stdatomic.h</code> in a
C++ program.
</ul>
<p>
Shortly before finalizing C++11, we briefly discussed accommodating <code>_Atomic</code>
roughly as described here.

<h2>Proposal</h2>
<p>
We propose to add a header <code>stdatomic.h</code> to the C++ standard. This would
mirror the identically named C header, and provide comparable functionality.
However, instead of defining it in terms of the C header, we propose that it have
the following effects:
<ol>
<li> Include the <code>&lt;atomic&gt;</code> header.
<li> Define a macro <code>_Atomic(T)</code> as <code>std::atomic&lt;T&gt;</code>.
<li> Promote all <code>atomic_</code>... and <code>memory_order</code>...
identifiers introduced by the <code>&lt;atomic&gt;</code> header into the global name space.
</ol>
<p>
Although this provides functionality very similar to the C header, it is unlikely
that it will be exactly the same. As usual, it is the responsibility of the author
of a C and C++ shared header to ensure that the code is correct in both languages.
<p>
This proposal makes no effort to support the C <code>_Atomic</code> type qualifier,
as opposed to the type <i>specifier</i> (which is spelled with parentheses).
This is intentional; accommodating the qualifier would be a major language
change, particularly since it is the only type qualifier that can affect
alignment.
<p>
We believe this is the minimum required to conveniently use atomics in shared
headers.

<h2>Implementation compatibility</h2>
<p>
This proposal reflects current practice in Android since the Android Lollipop release in 2014.
(See <a href="https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/lollipop-release/libc/include/stdatomic.h">
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/bionic/+/lollipop-release/libc/include/stdatomic.h</a>.
That uses a single include file shared between C and C++, which may not be the optimal
implementation strategy.)
<p>
In an ideal world, this would be easy to support in various compiler environments.
The main requirement is is that C and C++ atomics should be implemented identically
and use the same ABI conventions. There is no fundamental reason to do anything
differently.
Implementing ordering constraints in incompatible ways is already greatly
undesirable, in that mixed language programs with <code>memory_order</code>
annotations would no longer be sequentially consistent. Using incompatible
locking schemes for large atomics would generally double the amount of space
required for the lock table, and complicate ABI conventions, with no
benefit.
<p>
Our preliminary experiments with gcc-4.9 found no differences
on x86-64, though it did find some seeminly gratuitous alignment differences
om ARMv7. Unfortunately later information from Jonathan Wakely and David Goldblatt
points out that gcc in fact relies on two separate mechanisms for determining
atomics alignment in C and C++, and these differ in some corner cases,
since alignment decisions are made by the compiler in one case and the library the
other. Although this is nontrivial to change, and requires C++ ABI
changes in those corner cases, those changes appear desirable, even
independent of this proposal.
Some applications already assume compatible C++ and C ABIs for atomics, and those
will currently break. And the current approach appears to preclude
a consistent ABI between e.g. gcc and clang.
There appears to be general agreement that this should be fixed in any case.
More discussion can be found at
<a href="https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660">https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71660</a> .
<p>
Thus the implementation effort for meaningful conformance to this proposal
will vary between adding a simple header file on one hand,
and appreciable changes to the existing atomics alignment logic in either C or C++
on the other.
The implementation effort for minimal conformance consists of only the header file,
since we can't normatively say anything about C and C++ consistency.

<h2>Should there be a <code>&lt;cstdatomic&gt;</code>?</h2>
<p>
We do not believe there is a strong need to introduce a <code>&lt;cstdatomic&gt;</code>
that only introduces names into the <code>std::</code> namespace. The
justification for <code>&lt;stdatomic.h&gt;</code> is entirely to support
headers shared between C and C++, not to import a C facility into C++.
A shared header will not be able to take advantage of names introduced into the
<code>std::</code> namespace.
<p>
There is an argument that <code>&lt;cstdatomic&gt;</code> should be provided
anyway for uniformity. It's not clear that this outweighs the cost of introducing
a header that we expect to get essentially no use. There did not appear to be sentiment
in SG1 for adding <code>&lt;cstdatomic&gt;</code>.

<h2>Wording</h2>
<p>
Placement and details of the wording are heavily dependent on the outcome of the
P0619 discussion. We expect something along the following lines:
<blockquote>
<ins>The header <code>&lt;stdatomic.h&gt;</code> behaves as if it consisted of:</ins>
<pre><code><ins>
#include &lt;atomic&gt;
#define _Atomic(T) std::atomic&lt;T&gt;

using std::memory_order;
using std::memory_order_relaxed;
using std::memory_order_consume;
using std::memory_order_acquire;
using std::memory_order_release;
using std::memory_order_acq_rel;
using std::memory_order_seq_cst;

using std::atomic_flag;

using std::atomic_bool;
using std::atomic_char;
using std::atomic_schar;
using std::atomic_uchar;
using std::atomic_short;
using std::atomic_ushort;
using std::atomic_int;
using std::atomic_uint;
using std::atomic_long;
using std::atomic_ulong;
using std::atomic_llong;
using std::atomic_ullong;
using std::atomic_char16_t;
using std::atomic_char32_t;
using std::atomic_wchar_t;
using std::atomic_int8_t;
using std::atomic_uint8_t;
using std::atomic_int16_t;
using std::atomic_uint16_t;
using std::atomic_int32_t;
using std::atomic_uint32_t;
using std::atomic_int64_t;
using std::atomic_uint64_t;
using std::atomic_int_least8_t;
using std::atomic_uint_least8_t;
using std::atomic_int_least16_t;
using std::atomic_uint_least16_t;
using std::atomic_int_least32_t;
using std::atomic_uint_least32_t;
using std::atomic_int_least64_t;
using std::atomic_uint_least64_t;
using std::atomic_int_fast8_t;
using std::atomic_uint_fast8_t;
using std::atomic_int_fast16_t;
using std::atomic_uint_fast16_t;
using std::atomic_int_fast32_t;
using std::atomic_uint_fast32_t;
using std::atomic_int_fast64_t;
using std::atomic_uint_fast64_t;
using std::atomic_intptr_t;
using std::atomic_uintptr_t;
using std::atomic_size_t;
using std::atomic_ptrdiff_t;
using std::atomic_intmax_t;
using std::atomic_uintmax_t;
</ins></code></pre>
<p>
<ins>The <code>using</code> declarations for int<i>N</i>_t, uint<i>N</i>_t, intptr_t, and uintptr_t
are included only if the corresponding types are defined in the <code>&lt;atomic&gt;</code>
header.</ins>
<p>
<ins>[Note: Implementations should ensure that C and C++ representations of atomic
objects are compatible, so that the same object can be safely accessed as both
an <code>_Atomic(T)</code> from C code and <code>atomic&lt;T&gt;</code> from C++ code. The
representations should be the same, and the mechanisms used to ensure atomicity
and memory ordering should be compatible. --end note]</ins>
</blockquote>
<p>
The above is close to a verbatim reflection of the part of the Android
<code>&lt;stdatomic.h&gt;</code> header that is used when compiling C++.

<h2>History</h2>
<h3>Changed in R1</h3>
<p>Changes made to reflect SG1 discussion Jacksonville. SG1 voted 6/17/4/1/0 to advance to
to LEWG, but suggested a few changes:
<ul>
	<li>Removed false claim in discussion that this is always easy to implement.</li>
	<li>Promote only types to global name space, and let ADL take care of the rest.
		Android promotes all of them, but this now seems suboptimal.</li>
	<li>Explicitly list all <code>using</code> declarations required for the
		namespace promotion.</li>
</ul>
<p> Note that the SG1 discussion was slightly incorrect in that it overlooked the recent change
of <code>memory_oder</code> to an <code>enum class</code>. But in retrospect it's not at
all clear that this affects our proposal. It simply adds one more easily avoidable
incompatibility between C and C++ usages of the header.

</body>
</html>
