[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Review Request: Add spinlocks lock type, based on GCC intrisincs
From:       Michael Pyne <mpyne () purinchu ! net>
Date:       2012-08-28 0:29:52
Message-ID: 1388978.oK7RDt27RB () midna
[Download RAW message or body]


On Monday, August 27, 2012 20:18:34 Michael Pyne wrote:
> 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).

Actually I take that back. I was using QAtomicInt, which had that problem. 
QBasicAtomicInt works just fine in the union... yay!

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]