Review Request: Add spinlocks lock type, based on GCC intrisincs
mpyne at kde.org
Tue Aug 28 01:18:34 BST 2012
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
- Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
More information about the kde-core-devel