stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Teleman <>
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 <> 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 Teleman
KDE e.V.

View raw message