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 78B8EDB7E for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 20:57:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 37873 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2012 20:57:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 37842 invoked by uid 500); 6 Oct 2012 20:57:19 -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 37834 invoked by uid 99); 6 Oct 2012 20:57:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:57:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.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; Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:57:10 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (cpe-107-015-035-019.nc.res.rr.com [107.15.35.19]) by hates.ms (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8069945C1B4 for ; Sat, 6 Oct 2012 20:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50709AFA.2090006@hates.ms> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:56:26 -0400 From: Liviu Nicoara User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: STDCXX-1072 SPARC V8 mutex alignment requirements References: <50659828.9070409@hates.ms> <53D52D02E87FA04A948D9A74A7AE617C12E8A1E9CD@Eagle.Blue.Roguewave.Com> <50674D22.5010005@hates.ms> In-Reply-To: <50674D22.5010005@hates.ms> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/29/12 15:33, Liviu Nicoara wrote: > On 9/28/12 11:32 AM, Travis Vitek wrote: >> >> [...] I think an even cleaner solution is to switch >> to using __rw_aligned_buffer instead. It gives us a single point of >> failure for alignment issues like this, and it makes the code >> self-documenting and easier to read. > > I am attaching another patch here, which makes use of the > __rw_aligned_buffer, slightly more verbose but the code is slightly > cleaner. If there are no objections, I would check it in sometime after this week-end. Liviu