On Friday 04 April 2014 11:46:23 John David Anglin wrote: > On 4/3/2014 10:19 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > > OK, here's what upstream replied wrt the patch: > > Sorry, there's no way we can accept this patch. It is totally binary- > > incompatible for PA-RISC since it changes the size of QAtomicInt. > > Debian will need to keep the patch and ensure that everything is built > > with > > the patch applied (or without it). > > As noted in message #25, I was worried about this. However, this is an > essential part of > the change and I don't see any other way to resolve bug #708200. If you > have any suggestions > for resolving it without changing qt4-x11, let me know.
I'm ok on breaking binary compatibility just in Debian just for parisc because it's not a release arch. Would it have been otherwise, then not. > > What's more, I m not sure that you can set the IS_WAIT_FREE macros, > > since > > they are probably not wait-free. Just because you removed the explicit > > lock > > doesn't mean GCC won't use one behind your back in the __sync > > functions. I > > know it does that for ARM for types whose size are not 4 bytes. And > > knowing > > PA-RISC doesn't have wait-free atomic instructions, I doubt GCC can do > > it > > wait free either. > > > > I will not have any problem to keep this delta **if and only if** you can > > prove is safe to set IS_WAIT_FREE macros. > > Based on this page <http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5/QAtomicInt.html>, the > macro defines need > to stay as they were before. The implementation is not lock or loop > free. I will update the patch > and retest. Cool :) -- Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
