On segunda-feira, 27 de agosto de 2012 18.20.15, Michael Pyne wrote: > > Please use the Qt atomic types. Until GCC 4.7, they generate better code. > > I agree, the reason it wasn't that way initially is mentioned in the > discussion on the bug (but basically because you can't simply put > QBasicAtomicInt in the union used to store the different lock types that > are possible).
Why not?
QBasicAtomicInt are permitted in unions. Besides, why do you want it in a
union in the first place? You should not access the data that it holds *except*
via the QBasicAtomicInt functions.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
