On sexta-feira, 21 de setembro de 2012 16.46.44, Tony Van Eerd wrote: > I'll take that as a 'No'. ie use of DCAS would be limited to the point of > it not being worth maintaining 2 separate implementations - one with DCAS, > one without. I think DCAS is only worth using if it could be used > everywhere.
Right. Because of the silly x86-64 early mistake, we need to support a non-
DCAS version. Or ban those early processors without "cx16" support.
Even then, we need a separate implementation for LL/SC architectures.
We don't need to decide on that now. But if you do have a good solution with
DCAS, we could consider it later. We just need to double the size of QMutex
now.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
