On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
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.
Let me make something very clear to you: what I am doing
Comments below...
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Teleman
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: STDCXX-1066 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms
wrote:
In the light of your inability to answer the simplest
On 09/16/12 12:03, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
I merely wanted to point out that restoring the default packing is not the
same as restoring the packing to the previous value in effect.
Given this, I thought about an alternative
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
To be honest it's quite bizarre that you cannot share that with us. Is it
really a trade secret? How can that be the case if Oracle customers are also
required to perform the same alignment, perhaps using the same
On 9/23/12 3:48 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Liviu Nicoara nikko...@hates.ms wrote:
To be honest it's quite bizarre that you cannot share that with us. Is it
really a trade secret? How can that be the case if Oracle customers are also
required to perform the same
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Stefan Teleman
stefan.tele...@gmail.com wrote:
The second URL says this:
QUOTE
Due to a change in the implementation of the userland mutexes
introduced by CR 6296770 in KU 137111-01, objects of type mutex_t and
pthread_mutex_t must start at 8-byte aligned
On 9/23/12 5:50 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Stefan Teleman
stefan.tele...@gmail.com wrote:
The second URL says this:
QUOTE
Due to a change in the implementation of the userland mutexes
introduced by CR 6296770 in KU 137111-01, objects of type mutex_t and
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.
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.
10 matches
Mail list logo
