On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 01:27, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
>
> I agree with this change.
Thanks, pushed to trunk.
>
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:22 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> How about this?
>>
>> I don't think we should worry about targets without atomic int, so don't
>> bother using types smaller
I agree with this change.
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 4:22 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> How about this?
>
> I don't think we should worry about targets without atomic int, so don't
> bother using types smaller than int.
>
>
> -- >8 --
>
> For non-futex targets the __platform_wait_t type is currently u
How about this?
I don't think we should worry about targets without atomic int, so don't
bother using types smaller than int.
-- >8 --
For non-futex targets the __platform_wait_t type is currently uint64_t,
but that requires a lock in libatomic for some 32-bit targets. We don't
really need a 64
