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 Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:58:42 GMT
On 9/23/12 2:02 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> 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


Mime
View raw message