First of all, sorry for the long delay, I'm trying to catch up with my backlog :-/
On Wednesday 19 March 2014 15:59:01 Mark Salter wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 14:13 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer > > wrote: > > Mark: as per [0] Thiago (upstream for qtcore) says: > > > > +#ifndef Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER > > +# define Q_DATA_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile("dmb sy\n":::"memory") > > +#endif > > +#ifndef Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER > > +# define Q_COMPILER_MEMORY_BARRIER asm volatile("":::"memory") > > > > This shouldn't be necessary anymore if we're using the compilr > > intrinsics > > with the right __ATOMIC_xxx macros. The compiler will inser the proper > > barriers. > > > > Would it be possible to fix it? > > I agree that the explicit barriers are not needed. I could spin another > patch with them removed, but that still leaves -fpermissive. Please do spin the patch and I'll push it. [snip] > > I'm not very fluent with c++ and have no idea what needs to be done with > this. I think that's stuff for porters then (wookey?) -- You know it's love when you memorize her IP number to skip DNS overhead. Anonymous Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer http://perezmeyer.com.ar/ http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.