First of all, sorry for the long delay, I'm trying to catch up with my backlog :-/
On Wednesday 19 March 2014 15:59:01 Mark Salter wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 14:13 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
>
> wrote:
> > Mark: as per [0] Thiago (upstream for qtcore) says:
> >
> > +#ifndef Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER
> > +# define Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile("dmb sy\n":::"memory")
> > +#endif
> > +#ifndef Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER
> > +# define Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile("":::"memory")
> >
> > This shouldn't be necessary anymore if we're using the compilr
> > intrinsics
> > with the right __ATOMIC_xxx macros. The compiler will inser the proper
> > barriers.
> >
> > Would it be possible to fix it?
>
> I agree that the explicit barriers are not needed. I could spin another
> patch with them removed, but that still leaves -fpermissive.
Please do spin the patch and I'll push it.
[snip]
>
> I'm not very fluent with c++ and have no idea what needs to be done with
> this.
I think that's stuff for porters then (wookey?)
--
You know it's love when you memorize her IP number to skip DNS overhead.
Anonymous
Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
