On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 00:41:16 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On segunda-feira, 27 de agosto de 2012 18.20.15, Michael Pyne wrote: > > > Please use the Qt atomic types. Until GCC 4.7, they generate better > > > code. > > > > I agree, the reason it wasn't that way initially is mentioned in the > > discussion on the bug (but basically because you can't simply put > > QBasicAtomicInt in the union used to store the different lock types that > > are possible). > > Why not? > > QBasicAtomicInt are permitted in unions. Besides, why do you want it in a > union in the first place? You should not access the data that it holds > *except* via the QBasicAtomicInt functions.
That would be the idea, yes (to use the public QBAI functions). The problem with having it in a union was that it's a non-POD type according to C++ 03 rules (or at least, that seemed to be the issue when I had tried that initially). Regards, - Michael Pyne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.