alexshap added a comment.
> is that a problem for your codebase?
@zaks.anna - yes it is.
> Another possible issue is that we will use the synthesized body if the
> function name starts with "OSAtomicCompareAndSwap" since ?>we do not match
> the full function name. If the function body is available, there is a higher
> chance it is implementing something other >than the standard compare and
> swap. We might want to start matching the full names of the functions are are
yeah - i've just wanted to post a comment about it - btw -
OSAtomicCompareAndSwap is not the only example (dispatch_sync, dispatch_async
etc also create a problem). But in my case i ran into issue on the exact match
(but on the other function).
I have not updated this patch yet because I have not found a good solution -
still thinking (any suggestions appreciated). I probably understand the
motivation behind the changes introduced in r264687 but yes, it causes several
cfe-commits mailing list