On 09/24/12 00:09, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms> wrote:
I am not asking for any other implementation and I am not looking to change
anything. I wish you could explain it to us, but in the absence of trade
secret details I will take an explanation for the questions above.
Sorry, no.
This will not be another replay of the stdcxx-1056 email discussion,
which was a three week waste of my time.
The patch is provided "AS IS". No further testing and no further
comments. I do have more important things to do.
In the light of your inability to answer the simplest questions about the
correctness and usefulness of this patch, I propose we strike the patch in its
entirety. We could and should re-work the instances in the library where we
might use mutex and condition objects that are misaligned wrt the mentioned
kernel update.
Liviu
