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 15:53:55 -0800, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com> said: Roland> No new ABI is going to go in very soon. We have frozen the Roland> GLIBC_2.3.4 ABI already. That's unfortunate. Is there a mechanism to queue this patch so it doesn't get lost again when 2.3.5 is opened up? Roland> unsigned long long int is not an atomic type on all Roland> platforms, so your code as written is not acceptable without Roland> adding locking for machines where it's not. 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. Do you still think the patch is unacceptable in this regard? Roland> An interface to return the address of such variables is Roland> highly dubious, since it constrains the implementation and Roland> does so permanently for the future. OK, I see your point. Thanks, --david
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |