On 9/1/12 1:52 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:15 PM,
I opened yesterday STDCXX-1066:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-1056
about the pthread_mutex_t/pthread_cond_t alignment on SPARCV8. I'll
have patches done this weekend. Achtung: the patchset is very
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
That is funny. What compiler are you using? What does the following test
case return for you?
It's the Intel compiler with the patched stdcxx for the wrong case
and GCC 4.7.1 + GNU libstdc++ for the correct case.
GCC +
On 9/15/12 1:51 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
That is funny. What compiler are you using? What does the following test
case return for you?
It's the Intel compiler with the patched stdcxx for the wrong case
and GCC 4.7.1 +
On 9/15/12 2:57 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
I have read through the patches attached to the incident, then I briefly
read about the SunPro pragma align and pack. Two questions:
1. AFAICT, the use of the packing pragma may
On 9/15/12 5:19 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
Yes, but it restores the default packing, not an arbitrary one, potentially
set by the user prior to including our headers. Say, the user sets 2, the
default is 4 and we set 8.
