On 08/17/2011 11:39 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Next step, change the C++ header files to use the new __sync
builtins. pretty straightforward.
mostly.
A previous patch changed and documents the behaviour at runtime which is
transparent to these template changes. Another patch fixed the
cons
On 08/23/2011 03:24 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 08/23/2011 06:20 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 08/23/2011 03:13 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>> ! DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_2 (BT_FN_I1_CONST_VPTR_INT, BT_I1,
>>> BT_CONST_VOLATILE_PTR,
>>> ! BT_INT)
>> Given that VPTR means "volatile PTR"
On 08/23/2011 06:20 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/23/2011 03:13 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
! DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_2 (BT_FN_I1_CONST_VPTR_INT, BT_I1, BT_CONST_VOLATILE_PTR,
!BT_INT)
Given that VPTR means "volatile PTR", I suggest you use CVPTR instead of
CONST_VPTR.
Hmm, w
On 08/23/2011 03:13 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> ! DEF_FUNCTION_TYPE_2 (BT_FN_I1_CONST_VPTR_INT, BT_I1, BT_CONST_VOLATILE_PTR,
> ! BT_INT)
Given that VPTR means "volatile PTR", I suggest you use CVPTR instead of
CONST_VPTR.
Otherwise ok.
r~
On 08/18/2011 06:33 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/17/2011 08:39 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
! return __sync_mem_load (const_cast<__int_type *>(&_M_i), __m);
This suggests the builtin is incorrectly defined.
It ought to be const itself.
Err, right.
This patch declares the function pr
On 08/19/2011 12:48 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
The problem with issuing a warning is that anytime the compiler creates
a C++ atomic class and you use a method with a memory order, it usually
leaves an externally call-able method which has to take a runtime
value... so you'd see the warning on ba
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 08:44 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 08/19/2011 04:57 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:39 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >> That would be quite ugly, and you get what you deserve if you do that.
> >> I changed the builtins so that if you dont specify a
On 08/19/2011 04:57 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:39 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
That would be quite ugly, and you get what you deserve if you do that.
I changed the builtins so that if you dont specify a compile time
constant in the memory model parameter, it will simply d
On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 11:39 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Turns out, C++ will allow you to specify the memory model as a variable
> of type enum memory_order... WTF? I would expect that to be pretty
> uncommon, and in order to get that right, we'd need a switch statement
> and call the appropr
On 08/17/2011 08:39 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> ! return __sync_mem_load (const_cast <__int_type *>(&_M_i), __m);
This suggests the builtin is incorrectly defined.
It ought to be const itself.
r~
10 matches
Mail list logo
