On 05/07/2016 00:31, Emilio G. Cota wrote: > My mistake. An atomic_read here isn't needed: as the commit message > points out, we only need atomic_read when tb_lock isn't held. In this > case tb_lock is held, so we only use atomic accesses for writing > to the array.
It's harmless though. In C11 and C++11 it would even be required, so I think it's better to add it even though our compilers don't yet enforce it. Paolo
