Re: AtomicCounter::is_always_lock_free on armel

[rene.engelhard@mailbox.org]

Hi,

Am 6. November 2019 09:26:53 MEZ schrieb Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com>:
>don't make things worse than they originally were if we fall back to 
>that type again on armel.  So if the original code happened to work
>well 
>enough on armel in practice

It built. No more data ;-)

, you could add an appropriate #if/else
>(with 
>a useful comment) around the definition of AtomicCounter and the 
>accompanying static_assert.  

Can do, yes, although I would like it more if it was fine upstream...

> (And address any resulting -Wvolatile on 
>armel as appropriate for your needs.)

As it (is it?) only a warning one can also just ignore it ;-)

Regards

Rene

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.