I thought I replied but I see no trace of my post:
On 09/27/12 20:27, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06:41 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/26/12 20:12, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I have created STDCXX-1071 and linked to STDCXX-1056. [...]
I am open to all questions, the more the better. Most of m
I have created the above and linked it to the closed STDCXX-1066.
In short, my reading about this issue is that the kernel patch changed the
alignment of the userland mutex objects from a machine word to a double-word
boundary. No changes are required of the users who use such objects in their
On 09/28/12 08:29, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I have created the above and linked it to the closed STDCXX-1066.
[...]
IMO, the patch I attached does not break binary compatibility.
Scratch this, I haven't thought it through.
Thanks,
Liviu
On 09/28/12 08:45, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/28/12 08:29, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
I have created the above and linked it to the closed STDCXX-1066.
[...]
IMO, the patch I attached does not break binary compatibility.
Scratch this, I haven't thought it through.
Actually, after more thought, I b
Only major versions can break binary. The versioning policy for stdcxx can be
found here..
http://stdcxx.apache.org/versions.html
Travis
-Original Message-
From: Liviu Nicoara [mailto:nikko...@hates.ms]
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:52 AM
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Subject: Re: S
On 09/28/12 11:01, Travis Vitek wrote:
Only major versions can break binary. The versioning policy for stdcxx can be
found here..
http://stdcxx.apache.org/versions.html
Thanks, that clarifies things.
Liviu
> -Original Message-
> From: Liviu Nicoara
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:29 AM
>
>
> In short, my reading about this issue is that the kernel patch changed
> the alignment of the userland mutex objects from a machine word to a
> double-word boundary. No changes are required of th
The patch looks reasonable to me, except for the missing guard
for _RWSTD_NO_LONG_DOUBLE. For C++ 11 compilers, we might want
to replace the union with the alignas features. Of course, that
will require another configuration test and macro, and most
likely won't help the current Sun Studio compile
Liviu,
Sorry I didn't look until just now, but it appears that I could have re-opened
STDCXX-1066. I only see the 'Reopen Issue' button for STDCXX issues, but it is
most definitely there. Perhaps there is some sort of permission issue for you?
Also, STDCXX-1066 appears to have been a duplicate
On 09/28/2012 09:32 AM, Travis Vitek wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Liviu Nicoara
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:29 AM
In short, my reading about this issue is that the kernel patch changed
the alignment of the userland mutex objects from a machine word to a
double-word bounda
On 09/28/12 11:45, Travis Vitek wrote:
Liviu,
Sorry I didn't look until just now, but it appears that I could have re-opened
STDCXX-1066. I only see the 'Reopen Issue' button for STDCXX issues, but it is
most definitely there. Perhaps there is some sort of permission issue for you?
It's ok,
On 09/28/12 11:32, Travis Vitek wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Liviu Nicoara
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 5:29 AM
In short, my reading about this issue is that the kernel patch changed
the alignment of the userland mutex objects from a machine word to a
double-word boundary. N
On 09/28/2012 11:27 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/28/12 11:45, Travis Vitek wrote:
Liviu,
Sorry I didn't look until just now, but it appears that I could have
re-opened STDCXX-1066. I only see the 'Reopen Issue' button for STDCXX
issues, but it is most definitely there. Perhaps there is some s
On 09/28/12 13:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
One other comment: I would suggest choosing subjects for bug
reports that reflect the problem rather than a fix for it or
a rationale for it. For STDCXX-1066 I think something like
"Library mutex objects misaligned on SPARCV8" would better
capture the
On 09/28/2012 11:55 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/28/12 13:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
One other comment: I would suggest choosing subjects for bug
reports that reflect the problem rather than a fix for it or
a rationale for it. For STDCXX-1066 I think something like
"Library mutex objects mi
On 09/28/12 16:21, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/28/2012 11:55 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/28/12 13:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
One other comment: I would suggest choosing subjects for bug
reports that reflect the problem rather than a fix for it or
a rationale for it. For STDCXX-1066 I think
On 09/28/2012 02:31 PM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/28/12 16:21, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/28/2012 11:55 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote:
On 09/28/12 13:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
[...]
One other comment: I would suggest choosing subjects for bug
reports that reflect the problem rather than a fix for it o
On 9/28/12 11:01 AM, Travis Vitek wrote:
Only major versions can break binary. The versioning policy for stdcxx can be
found here..
http://stdcxx.apache.org/versions.html
I have renamed the binary-incompatible patch as patch-5.0.x.diff.
Thanks,
Liviu
Travis
-Original Message-
18 matches
Mail list logo
