On 05/31/2011 11:55 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Last majority opinion on this that I'm aware of said that only primitive
> types can be used for exceptions thrown out of transactions. We should
> be able to handle this with the EH ABI wrappers only.
>
> Okay to drop support of dropReferences()?
F
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 11:11 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > +The intention behind @code{_ITM_dropReferences} is not entirely clear. The
> > +specification suggests that this function is necessary because of certain
> > +orderings of data transfer undos and the releasing of memory regions (i.e.,
On 05/26/2011 12:19 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> +@subsection State manipulation functions
> +There is no @code{getTransaction} function. Transaction identifiers for
> +nested transactions will be ordered but not necessarily sequential (i.e., for
> +a nested transaction's identifier @code{IN} and it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 05/26/11 13:19, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Patch adds libitm.texi with some documentation, including differences
> between our currently targeted ABI and Intel's current ABI
> specification.
>
> OK for branch?
I'd really like to see Richard chime in o
This is great to see that there is some activity around the trans-mem
branch.
+@subsection [New] Transactional dynamic memory management
Remark: I think this part of documentation may also mention new and delete
operators.
Patrick Marlier.
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Patch
