This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:10:51 -0800, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> said: >> Is there a mechanism to queue this patch so it doesn't get lost >> again when 2.3.5 is opened up? Roland> It never "got lost". It's your baby, and you didn't follow Roland> up on it before now. We use bugzilla for keeping track of Roland> things, but something can sit there unattended just as well Roland> if you don't stay on top of it. So when should I check back? >> The incrementing is always done under protection of a lock. The >> reading is not, but on those machines where reading an "unsigned >> long long int" isn't atomic, the effect is no worse than when >> using "unsigned int". And on those machines where it is atomic, >> "unsigned long long int" pretty much guarantees that the counter >> will never overflow. Roland> Either it's a counter with a robust well-defined semantics, Roland> or it's not. If it's not reliably usable as a counter, then Roland> there is no reason to call it one. Fine; I don't mind changing it back to "unsigned long int". --david
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |