This is adding a overhead for each visit witch is not neccesasy.
Is crossbeam denied to use AtomicCell with static by reason? should we create a pr to crossbeam?

This is adding a overhead for each visit witch is not neccesasy. Is crossbeam denied to use AtomicCell with static by reason? should we create a pr to crossbeam?

According to their comment(https://docs.rs/crossbeam-utils/0.8.10/src/crossbeam_utils/atomic/atomic_cell.rs.html#33-47) in 0.8.10 of crossbeam-utils, yes it seems to have a reason(Not using MaybeUninit is unsound)

    /// Using MaybeUninit to prevent code outside the cell from observing partially initialized state:
    /// <https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/issues/833>

They add a MaybeUninit starting after 0.8.9, this is link to 0.8.9 for comparsion:
https://docs.rs/crossbeam-utils/0.8.9/src/crossbeam_utils/atomic/atomic_cell.rs.html#33-40

Ok I see, due to MaybeUninit now crossbeam::AtomicCell has to implement Drop.

Can you create a RFC so we can optimize it in the future?

How about this RFC?
#4295

Ok I see, due to MaybeUninit now crossbeam::AtomicCell has to implement Drop.

Can you create a RFC so we can optimize it in the future?