incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1066 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:21:07 GMT
On 09/24/12 00:09, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> wrote:
>
>> I am not asking for any other implementation and I am not looking to change
>> anything. I wish you could explain it to us, but in the absence of trade
>> secret details I will take an explanation for the questions above.
>
> Sorry, no.
>
> This will not be another replay of the stdcxx-1056 email discussion,
> which was a three week waste of my time.
>
> The patch is provided "AS IS". No further testing and no further
> comments. I do have more important things to do.

In the light of your inability to answer the simplest questions about the correctness and
usefulness of this patch, I propose we strike the patch in its entirety. We could and should
re-work the instances in the library where we might use mutex and condition objects that are
misaligned wrt the mentioned kernel update.

Liviu


Mime
View raw message