Review Request: Add spinlocks lock type, based on GCC intrisincs

[Michael Pyne]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20120827/d1e35ca5/attachment.sig>