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.
