On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Olaf van der Spek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Monty Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> What are you accomplishing with the atomic_base -> atomic_impl move. >> (not saying it's bad - I just want to know what you wanted to do here) > > Simpler code. > >> Why did you remove the empty constructors? They were preventing >> default constructors from writing data to memory locations that we >> didn't want them to write to? > > Eh, to what memory would default constructors write? > >> Additionally - the pthread_atomics_test was there specifically to test >> that the pthread-based atomic class worked, even if you happened to be >> running the tests on a machine that happened to have real atomic >> support. With the change to use the top-level atomic class, the test >> no longer tests that. > > Ah. Does it make sense to test code you're not going to use though?
Monty? _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
