Am 20.05.10 10:29, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
Joost van der Sluis het geskryf:
1) Ignore Marco and implement it any way. I think you have just as
much say as Macro on what goes into the FPC.
thread yet. But here you are going too far. Way too far. Imho we don't
Well my statement was true wasn't it? Michael's opinion should count too.
Why must Marco always get his way? Why must Marco always disagree with all
new proposals.
Short enough?
I personally met, talked to, and respect Michael and Marco (SYSTEMS/Munich).
I agree to Joosts statement.
Can someone please explain to me what the change to TObject will do to
my STM implementation ?
(Relying on memory layout, lockfree algo's and size ... )
Beware you need to make your self familiar with :
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/lock-free/
at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_transactional_memory
If you want to give statements with a clue - (and after that you still
cannot answer my question).
A redisign of classes is ok as it implies the chance to adobt code to it.
But fundamential changes in an stability release ?
helmut
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
