Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 09B4BDB82 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:59:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 77465 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2012 20:59:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 77418 invoked by uid 500); 23 Sep 2012 20:59:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 77410 invoked by uid 99); 23 Sep 2012 20:59:10 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:59:10 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.34.174.152] (HELO hates.ms) (64.34.174.152) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:59:04 +0000 Received: from [2.128.155.14] (unknown [206.197.31.227]) by hates.ms (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 83F4D45C1A8 for ; Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <505F7802.7010405@hates.ms> Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 16:58:42 -0400 From: Liviu Nicoara User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Subject: Re: STDCXX-1066 [was: Re: STDCXX forks] References: <5054B4B1.8040502@hates.ms> <5054EBD1.2010802@hates.ms> <5054F77C.9030406@hates.ms> <505F1E4F.1030300@hates.ms> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 9/23/12 2:02 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrote: > > [...] >> 4. I see rw/_mutex.h has alignment pragmas for both __rw_mutex_base class >> and its mutex member; same for __rw_static_mutex and its static member, etc. >> How does that work? > > It works. ;-) And it actually acts as a space saver. Wink-wink. Stefan, I stumbled upon this: http://tinyurl.com/ceet6ec and this: http://tinyurl.com/c4h9mgl Both (but esp. the first one) seem to indicate that classes like __rw_mutex_base: struct __rw_mutex_base { mutex_t _C_mutex; }; and __rw_static_mutex: template< typename T > struct __rw_static_mutex { static mutex_t _C_mutex; }; do not need special alignment pragmas (btw, I did not find any in the Solaris Studio for SPARC headers anywhere). It is puzzling, esp. since you cannot share the details with us. How do you suggest we clarify this? Thanks! Liviu