cppreference.com documents this function as \"fence between a thread and a signal handler executed in the same thread\". But I found no example on the Internet.
I wonder
No, your code does not demonstrate correct usage of atomic_signal_fence
. As you quote cppreference.com, atomic_signal_fence
only perform synchronization between a signal handler and other code running on the same thread. That means that it does not perform synchronization between two different threads. Your example code shows two different threads.
The C++ spec contains the following notes about this function:
Note: compiler optimizations and reorderings of loads and stores are inhibited in the same way as with
atomic_thread_fence
, but the hardware fence instructions that atomic_thread_fence would have inserted are not emitted.Note:
atomic_signal_fence
can be used to specify the order in which actions performed by the thread become visible to the signal handler.
Here's an example of correct, if not motivating, usage:
static_assert(2 == ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE, "this implementation does not guarantee that std::atomic is always lock free.");
std::atomic a = 0;
std::atomic b = 0;
extern "C" void handler(int) {
if (1 == a.load(std::memory_order_relaxed)) {
std::atomic_signal_fence(std::memory_order_acquire);
assert(1 == b.load(std::memory_order_relaxed));
}
std::exit(0);
}
int main() {
std::signal(SIGTERM, &handler);
b.store(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
std::atomic_signal_fence(std::memory_order_release);
a.store(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
}
The assertion, if encountered, is guaranteed to hold true.