On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 20:54 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
On 03/09/2011 06:01 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 10:46 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
On 01/29/2011 03:04 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 20:13 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
What about using GCC atomic
On 01/29/2011 03:04 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 20:13 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
What about using GCC atomic builtins like in the attached patch?
Excellent, the pthread fallback always niggled me.
Sorry for not thinking about this earlier, can this be cherry-picked
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 10:46 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
On 01/29/2011 03:04 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 20:13 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
What about using GCC atomic builtins like in the attached patch?
Excellent, the pthread fallback always niggled me.
Sorry for not
On 03/09/2011 06:01 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 10:46 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
On 01/29/2011 03:04 PM, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 20:13 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
What about using GCC atomic builtins like in the attached patch?
Excellent, the pthread
On 2/2/11 10:01 PM, Kevin Hunter wrote:
At 3:31pm -0500 Wed, 02 Feb 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 13:44 +, Wols Lists wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean by legacy Intel, but if you're
referring to all single-processor CPUs, they still power most of
the budget brand new
Jonathan,
This is now my fourth mail on this issue with no action. It is rather
rude to add a few lines at the bottom of a mail without removing the
context. To help you count the lines, and re-inforce the point, I will
manually number them below; please count them out loud with me:
1 On
On 28/01/11 15:19, Michael Meeks wrote:
Perhaps I'll gather enough courage to annoy all the legacy
uni-processor Intel guys in a bit, and put that in-line in a header for
the GCC cases [ if this works out nicely on OSX that is ]
Not quite sure what you mean by legacy Intel, but if you're
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 13:44 +, Wols Lists wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean by legacy Intel, but if you're referring
to all single-processor CPUs, they still power most of the budget brand
new laptops!
Surely those guys are hyper-threaded by now ? at least the Atom (which
is
At 3:31pm -0500 Wed, 02 Feb 2011, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 13:44 +, Wols Lists wrote:
Not quite sure what you mean by legacy Intel, but if you're
referring to all single-processor CPUs, they still power most of
the budget brand new laptops!
Surely those guys are
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 20:13 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
What about using GCC atomic builtins like in the attached patch?
Excellent, the pthread fallback always niggled me.
C.
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 20:13 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
What about using GCC atomic builtins like in the attached patch?
Lovely :-) I would use them exclusively, except for the fact that we
got a substantial speed win on (lets face it, by now rather old
single-processor Intel systems),
Hi Jani,
On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 15:42 +0200, Jani Monoses wrote:
this declaration seems to not be used.
Right :-)
A similar one exists in the file token.cxx in formula/ where this was
copied from according to the comments.
Indeed.
This, in combination with some toolchain
Hi Michael,
thanks for pushing to 3.3
When there's a relase with the patch included, it should close this
issue I opened a few days ago
https://bugs.freedesktop.org//show_bug.cgi?id=33402
Having said that, it is already fixed in master, so I just merged your
patch to libreoffice-3-3
13 matches
Mail list logo
