stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <stefan.tele...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: STDCXX-1066 [was: Re: STDCXX forks]
Date Sun, 16 Sep 2012 16:03:01 GMT
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms> wrote:

> I merely wanted to point out that restoring the default packing is not the
> same as restoring the packing to the previous value in effect.
>
> Given this, I thought about an alternative way of forcing this alignment,
> e.g., via a union, aligned on an appropriate type. I see an advantage here
> in that most of the changes would occur where we define the 'primitive'
> mutex and condition wrappers, saving a few pre-processor conditionals and
> pragmas along the way.

I understood what you were saying. I just don't understand under what
_sane_ circumstances a program would #include a system library header
file with a previously set packing to something other than default. Or
would expect a non-default packing to work during a function call to a
sytem library. That's an insane configuration on any operating system
that I know of, not just on SPARCV8.

In order to make any change to the packing/alignment patches now I
would have to re-run _all_ the validation tests for stdcxx on SPARC,
on Solaris 10 and Solaris 11. I'm pretty sure that is not workable at
this point.

--Stefan

-- 
Stefan Teleman
KDE e.V.
stefan.teleman@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message