Re: [google-4.6]Backport r183875 to fix incorrect increment/decrement of atomic pointers (issue 6428056)

LGTM. http://codereview.appspot.com/6428056/

Re: [google-4.6]Backport r183875 to fix incorrect increment/decrement of atomic pointers (issue 6428056)

It is not a straightforward backport. has changed a lot in gcc-4.7. is_lock_free() body is entirely different between gcc-4.6 and r183875. In gcc-4.6, is_lock_free() simply returns false or true. Notice that gcc-4.6 defines two namesapce __atomic0, __atomic2 in separate files (atomic_0.h, atomic_2

Re: [google-4.6]Backport r183875 to fix incorrect increment/decrement of atomic pointers (issue 6428056)

This seems to be different from r183875. Are the parts chaing is_look_free() in r183875 necessary? If not why? http://codereview.appspot.com/6428056/