Feature request: Atomic bitflags #420

Closed
opened 2024-08-18 08:52:16 -05:00 by TadaHrd · 2 comments
TadaHrd commented 2024-08-18 08:52:16 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

I think bitflags could benefit if they had atomic versions.

I think bitflags could benefit if they had atomic versions.
KodrAus commented 2024-08-23 22:20:53 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Hi @TadaHrd 👋 We explored this previously in #391 and concluded that the additional complexity directly in bitflags is too much. It looks like there are alternatives like atomig can make this smoother for you though.

Hi @TadaHrd :wave: We explored this previously in #391 and concluded that the additional complexity directly in `bitflags` is too much. It looks like there are alternatives like [`atomig`](https://docs.rs/atomig/latest/atomig/) can make this smoother for you though.
TadaHrd commented 2024-08-24 03:53:04 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Hi @TadaHrd 👋 We explored this previously in #391 and concluded that the additional complexity directly in bitflags is too much. It looks like there are alternatives like atomig can make this smoother for you though.

Ah ok. If it's too complex, then it makes sense to avoid it.

> Hi @TadaHrd :wave: We explored this previously in #391 and concluded that the additional complexity directly in `bitflags` is too much. It looks like there are alternatives like [`atomig`](https://docs.rs/atomig/latest/atomig/) can make this smoother for you though. Ah ok. If it's too complex, then it makes sense to avoid it.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No labels
bug
good first issue
No milestone
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
gh-bitflags/bitflags#420
No description provided.