On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 14:46 +0100, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 29 July 2015 at 13:46, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 09:57 +0200, Iago Toral wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 18:35 +1000, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> > > > Since commit c0cd5b var->data.binding was
On 29 July 2015 at 13:46, Timothy Arceri wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 09:57 +0200, Iago Toral wrote:
>> On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 18:35 +1000, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>> > Since commit c0cd5b var->data.binding was being used as a replacement
>> > for atomic buffer index, but
On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 18:35 +1000, Timothy Arceri wrote:
Since commit c0cd5b var-data.binding was being used as a replacement
for atomic buffer index, but they don't have to be the same value they
just happen to end up the same when binding is 0.
Now we store atomic buffer index in the
On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 09:57 +0200, Iago Toral wrote:
On Sun, 2015-07-26 at 18:35 +1000, Timothy Arceri wrote:
Since commit c0cd5b var-data.binding was being used as a replacement
for atomic buffer index, but they don't have to be the same value they
just happen to end up the same when
Since commit c0cd5b var-data.binding was being used as a replacement
for atomic buffer index, but they don't have to be the same value they
just happen to end up the same when binding is 0.
Now we store atomic buffer index in the unused var-data.index
to avoid the extra memory of putting back the