On 09/24/12 01:18, Travis Vitek wrote:


Liviu,

Should the volatile be to the left of the intT typename here? I know it is 
equivalent, but it is weird to look at the line of code below and see that 
we're following two different conventions.


Thanks, will do.

Travis
_______________________________________
From: Liviu Nicoara
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:34 AM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: [PATCH] STDCXX-853

Umm, I didn't think to search for a corresponding incident and I considered the 
defect to be so minor as to not warrant an issue. The following patch has been 
applied already on 4.2.x:

Index: tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp
===================================================================
--- tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp       (revision 1388732)
+++ tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp       (revision 1388733)
@@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ void run_test (intT, thr_args_base::tag_
       // compute the expected result, "skipping" zeros by incrementing
       // expect twice when it overflows and wraps around to 0 (zero is
       // used as the lock variable in thread_routine() above)
-    intT expect = intT (1);
+    intT volatile expect = intT (1);

       const unsigned long nincr = (Args::nthreads_ * Args::nincr_) / 2U;



--
And now I see with eye serene
The very pulse of the machine.

Reply via email to