This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 15:23:18 +0000
Subject: Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
References: <CAH6eHdRKT1uxhertPTGuUDHSaE4YgWdvjynHKvtmmfhbSWj-7A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc1=B4ia2XzuC6U_Y4+u8bZzL=sGj_Yesi59wtapa2SqUA@mail.gmail.com> <4F32733B.4020504@redhat.com>

On 8 February 2012 13:06, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 05:54 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely<jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
>> ?wrote:
>>>
>>> Should they be?
>>
>> Yes. ?Esp. also the deprecation of the __sync builtins.
>
> Yes, I meant to do that last week, but instead it's this week :-P ? ? Gerald
> had pinged me about it a while ago.

Great, thanks - I was thinking about adding a line to the C++11
improvements in the libstdc++ section mentioning the new
implementation of <atomic>, do you think it's worth it?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
  - From: Andrew MacLeod
- Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
  - From: Andrew MacLeod

References:
- New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
  - From: Andrew MacLeod

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]