atom | Intuitive wrapper types enforcing atomic access | Reactive Programming library

There's an unstable feature that will introduce let-else statements.

RFC 3137

Introduce a new let PATTERN: TYPE = EXPRESSION else DIVERGING_BLOCK; construct (informally called a let-else statement), the counterpart of if-let expressions.

If the pattern match from the assigned expression succeeds, its bindings are introduced into the surrounding scope. If it does not succeed, it must diverge (return !, e.g. return or break).

With this feature you'll be able to write:

Define a template for the two rows and then use grid-auto-rows with 0

C++ Copy Constructors: must I spell out all member variables in the initializer list?

Yes, if you write a user defined copy constructor, then you must write an initialiser for every sub object - unless you wish to default initialise them, in which case you don't need any initialiser - or if you can use a default member initialiser.

the object contains some member variables which are pointers to its other member variables)

This is a design that should be avoided when possible. Not only does this force you to define custom copy and move assignment operators and constructors, but it is often unnecessarily inefficient.

But, in case that is necessary for some reason - or custom special member functions are needed for any other reason - you can achieve clean code by combining the normally copying parts into a separate dummy class. That way the the user defined constructor has only one sub object to initialise.

Like this:

Yes, that is exactly it. notify_one/all simply provide the waiting thread a chance to check the value for change. If it remains the same, e.g. because a different thread has set the value back to its original value, the thread will remain blocking.

Note: A valid implementation for this code is to use a global array of mutexes and condition_variables. atomic variables are then mapped to these objects by their pointer via a hash function. That's why you get spurious wakeups. Some atomics share the same condition_variable.

Something like this:

From a semantics and accessibility point of view, I'd consider separating out the controls from the visualization itself—at least in terms of the markup. This will let you use more semantic input elements, like , which come with their own states that assistive tech understands. And it will keep selection state (which is an input element trait) separate from highlighted state (which is a visualization display trait).

You can then tie those input elements to the visualization using the aria-controls attribute.

To denote the state of the items in the visualization itself, instead of using ARIA roles, I would suggest just using text.

A basic example could work something like this:

This is Clang bug #49513; the situation and analysis is similar to this answer.

sizeof(T)>0 is an atomic constraint, so [temp.constr.atomic]/3 applies:

To determine if an atomic constraint is satisfied, the parameter mapping and template arguments are first substituted into its expression. If substitution results in an invalid type or expression, the constraint is not satisfied. [...]

sizeof(void)>0 is an invalid expression, so that constraint is not satisfied, and constraint evaluation proceeds to sizeof(U)>0.

As in the linked question, an alternative workaround is to use "requires requires requires"; demo:

A "multiarch" Python interpreter built on MacOS is intended to target MacOS-on-Intel and MacOS-on-Apple's-arm64.

There is absolutely no binary compatibility with Linux-on-Apple's-arm64, or with Linux-on-aarch64. You can't run MacOS executables on Linux, no matter if the architecture matches or not.

As I understand it, they're not the same, and a counterexample is below. I believe the error in your logic is here:

And said order can only be observed if you actually perform seq-cst loads.

I don't think that's true. In atomics.order p4 which defines the axioms of the sequential consistency total order S, items 2-4 all may involve operations which are not seq_cst. You can observe the coherence ordering between such operations, and this can let you infer how the seq_cst operations have been ordered.

As an example, consider the following version of the StoreLoad litmus test, akin to Peterson's algorithm:

Previous answers may help as background:
c++, std::atomic, what is std::memory_order and how to use them?
https://bartoszmilewski.com/2008/12/01/c-atomics-and-memory-ordering/

Firstly the system you describe is known as a Single Producer - Single Consumer queue. You can always look at the boost version of this container to compare. I often will examine boost code, even when I work in situations where boost is not allowed. This is because examining and understanding a stable solution will give you insights into problems you may encounter (why did they do it that way? Oh, I see it - etc). Given your design, and having written many similar containers I will say that your design has to be careful about distinguishing empty from full. If you use a classic {begin,end} pair, you hit the problem that due to wrapping

{begin, begin+size} == {begin, begin} == empty

Okay, so back synchronisation issue.

Given that the order only effects reording, the use of release in Publish seems a textbook use of the flag. Nothing will read the value until the size of the container is incremented, so you don't care if the orders of writes of the value itself happen in a random order, you only care that the value must be fully written before the count is increased. So I would concur, you are correctly using the flag in the Publish function.
I did question whether the "release" was required in the Consume, but if you are moving out of the queue, and those moves are side-effecting, it may be required. I would say that if you are after raw speed, then it may be worth making a second version, that is specialised for trivial objects, that uses relaxed order for incrementing the head.

You might also consider inplace new/delete as you push/pop. Whilst most moves will leave an object in an empty state, the standard only requires that it is left in a valid state after a move. explicitly deleting the object after the move may save you from obscure bugs later.

You could argue that the two atomic loads in consume could be memory_order_consume. This relaxes the constraints to say "I don't care what order they are loaded, as long as they are both loaded by the time they are used". Although I doubt in practice it produces any gain. I am also nervous about this suggestion because when I look at the boost version it is remarkably close to what you have. https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_66_0/boost/lockfree/spsc_queue.hpp