---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106224/#review18472
---
OK, I've committed a spinlock implementation that should work
On segunda-feira, 27 de agosto de 2012 20.29.52, Michael Pyne wrote:
On Monday, August 27, 2012 20:18:34 Michael Pyne wrote:
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 00:41:16 Thiago Macieira wrote:
QBasicAtomicInt are permitted in unions. Besides, why do you want it in
a
union in the first place?
On terça-feira, 28 de agosto de 2012 12.28.24, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
See the definition of SharedLock structure in kshareddatacache_p.h.
Actually, other union members will not be accessed simultaneously with
spinlock, but compiler doesn't know about that.
I don't see the need for a union.
The
On quarta-feira, 29 de agosto de 2012 00.36.07, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
2012/8/28 Thiago Macieira thi...@kde.org:
On terça-feira, 28 de agosto de 2012 12.28.24, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
See the definition of SharedLock structure in kshareddatacache_p.h.
Actually, other union members will not be
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 00:36:07 Vadim Zhukov wrote:
2012/8/28 Thiago Macieira thi...@kde.org:
On terça-feira, 28 de agosto de 2012 12.28.24, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
See the definition of SharedLock structure in kshareddatacache_p.h.
Actually, other union members will not be accessed
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106224/
---
Review request for kdelibs and Michael Pyne.
Description
---
Add
On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 19.09.15, Vadim Zhukov wrote:
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/106224/
---
Review
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
