Re: [PATCH] STDCXX-853
On 09/24/12 01:18, Travis Vitek wrote: Liviu, Should the volatile be to the left of the intT typename here? I know it is equivalent, but it is weird to look at the line of code below and see that we're following two different conventions. Thanks, will do. Travis ___ From: Liviu Nicoara Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Subject: [PATCH] STDCXX-853 Umm, I didn't think to search for a corresponding incident and I considered the defect to be so minor as to not warrant an issue. The following patch has been applied already on 4.2.x: Index: tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp === --- tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp (revision 1388732) +++ tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp (revision 1388733) @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ void run_test (intT, thr_args_base::tag_ // compute the expected result, skipping zeros by incrementing // expect twice when it overflows and wraps around to 0 (zero is // used as the lock variable in thread_routine() above) -intT expect = intT (1); +intT volatile expect = intT (1); const unsigned long nincr = (Args::nthreads_ * Args::nincr_) / 2U; -- And now I see with eye serene The very pulse of the machine.
[PATCH] STDCXX-853
Umm, I didn't think to search for a corresponding incident and I considered the defect to be so minor as to not warrant an issue. The following patch has been applied already on 4.2.x: Index: tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp === --- tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp (revision 1388732) +++ tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp (revision 1388733) @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ void run_test (intT, thr_args_base::tag_ // compute the expected result, skipping zeros by incrementing // expect twice when it overflows and wraps around to 0 (zero is // used as the lock variable in thread_routine() above) -intT expect = intT (1); +intT volatile expect = intT (1); const unsigned long nincr = (Args::nthreads_ * Args::nincr_) / 2U;
RE: [PATCH] STDCXX-853
Liviu, Should the volatile be to the left of the intT typename here? I know it is equivalent, but it is weird to look at the line of code below and see that we're following two different conventions. Travis ___ From: Liviu Nicoara Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:34 AM To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Subject: [PATCH] STDCXX-853 Umm, I didn't think to search for a corresponding incident and I considered the defect to be so minor as to not warrant an issue. The following patch has been applied already on 4.2.x: Index: tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp === --- tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp (revision 1388732) +++ tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp (revision 1388733) @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ void run_test (intT, thr_args_base::tag_ // compute the expected result, skipping zeros by incrementing // expect twice when it overflows and wraps around to 0 (zero is // used as the lock variable in thread_routine() above) -intT expect = intT (1); +intT volatile expect = intT (1); const unsigned long nincr = (Args::nthreads_ * Args::nincr_) / 2U;
