stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Liviu Nicoara <nikko...@hates.ms>
Subject Re: [PATCH] STDCXX-853
Date Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:31:07 GMT
On 09/24/12 01:18, Travis Vitek wrote:
>
> Liviu,
>
> Should the volatile be to the left of the intT typename here? I know it is equivalent,
but it is weird to look at the line of code below and see that we're following two different
conventions.
>

Thanks, will do.

> Travis
> _______________________________________
> From: Liviu Nicoara
> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 8:34 AM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: [PATCH] STDCXX-853
>
> Umm, I didn't think to search for a corresponding incident and I considered the defect
to be so minor as to not warrant an issue. The following patch has been applied already on
4.2.x:
>
> Index: tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp
> ===================================================================
> --- tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp       (revision 1388732)
> +++ tests/support/atomic_xchg.cpp       (revision 1388733)
> @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ void run_test (intT, thr_args_base::tag_
>        // compute the expected result, "skipping" zeros by incrementing
>        // expect twice when it overflows and wraps around to 0 (zero is
>        // used as the lock variable in thread_routine() above)
> -    intT expect = intT (1);
> +    intT volatile expect = intT (1);
>
>        const unsigned long nincr = (Args::nthreads_ * Args::nincr_) / 2U;
>


-- 
And now I see with eye serene
The very pulse of the machine.

Mime
View raw message