On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 14:13 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
wrote:
> Mark: as per [0] Thiago (upstream for qtcore) says:
>
> +#ifndef Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER
> +# define Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile("dmb sy\n":::"memory")
> +#endif
> +#ifndef Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER
> +# define Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile("":::"memory")
>
> This shouldn't be necessary anymore if we're using the compilr intrinsics
> with the right __ATOMIC_xxx macros. The compiler will inser the proper
> barriers.
>
> Would it be possible to fix it?
I agree that the explicit barriers are not needed. I could spin another
patch with them removed, but that still leaves -fpermissive.
>
> [0] <https://codereview.qt-project.org/#patch,all_unified,81011,3>
>
> For everyone but specially Wookey who wants the patchs in Debian, quoting
> upstream WRT -fpermissive:
>
> That error needs to be fixed in the right place. Adding -fpermissive to
> make the error disappear without fixing the problem is not the right
> solution.
>
> So as I said before, this needs to get fixed before merging the patches.
>
> As a wrap-up of the push-to-upstream actions, the mostly objected part if the
> -fpermissive flag.
>
I'm not very fluent with c++ and have no idea what needs to be done with
this.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
