add atomic duration type #37
Conversation
|
|
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #37 +/- ##
=====================================
Coverage 100% 100%
=====================================
Files 2 2
Lines 118 132 +14
=====================================
+ Hits 118 132 +14
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
atomic.go
Outdated
| // Duration is an atomic wrapper around time.Duration | ||
| // https://godoc.org/time#Duration | ||
| type Duration struct { | ||
| v *Int64 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
would it make more sense to reimplement the underlying int64 bit so we don't have a double-pointer situation?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't need to reimplement, you can just make this v Int64
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use Int64 instead of a pointer
atomic.go
Outdated
| // Duration is an atomic wrapper around time.Duration | ||
| // https://godoc.org/time#Duration | ||
| type Duration struct { | ||
| v *Int64 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
don't need to reimplement, you can just make this v Int64
atomic.go
Outdated
| func (d *Duration) Store(s time.Duration) { | ||
| d.v.Store(int64(s)) | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
after looking at this, i think it might make sense to add Add, Sub, CAS, similar to Int64, but are atomic
|
I benchmarked reusing the existing |
atomic.go
Outdated
| // Duration is an atomic wrapper around time.Duration | ||
| // https://godoc.org/time#Duration | ||
| type Duration struct { | ||
| v *Int64 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use Int64 instead of a pointer
Before opening your pull request, please make sure that you've:
make test); and finally,make lint).Thanks for your contribution!