On Dec 30, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> Ah, OK, so the completion is checked at the next conflicting
> operation. Yeah, that makes sense I guess.
*nod*
> Thus OK (I think Jeff already approved the patch).
Thanks, 16/ and 17/ were still pending reviews.
I'm installing 17/ now.
> Thanks and h
> Am 30.12.2022 um 09:53 schrieb Alexandre Oliva :
>
> On Dec 29, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
Am 29.12.2022 um 00:06 schrieb Alexandre Oliva :
>>>
>>> On Dec 28, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
I wonder if on INSERT, pushing a DELETED marker would fix the dangling
insert
On Dec 29, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Am 29.12.2022 um 00:06 schrieb Alexandre Oliva :
>>
>> On Dec 28, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if on INSERT, pushing a DELETED marker would fix the dangling
>>> insert and search during delete problem be whether that would be
>>> better
> Am 29.12.2022 um 00:06 schrieb Alexandre Oliva :
>
> On Dec 28, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> I wonder if on INSERT, pushing a DELETED marker would fix the dangling
>> insert and search during delete problem be whether that would be
>> better from a design point of view? (It of course r
On Dec 28, 2022, Richard Biener wrote:
> I wonder if on INSERT, pushing a DELETED marker would fix the dangling
> insert and search during delete problem be whether that would be
> better from a design point of view? (It of course requires a DELETED
> representation)
I'm undecided whether a desi
> Am 28.12.2022 um 13:51 schrieb Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches
> :
>
> On Dec 27, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> The number of bugs it revealed tells me that leaving callers in charge
>> of completing insertions is too error prone. I found this
>> verification code a bit too expensive
