This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: Patch ping

From: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>
To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
Cc: Peter Dimov <pdimov at mmltd dot net>, Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 22:46:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Patch ping
References: <m3r7b1b596.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <43464590.2090606@suse.de> <m33bnd42y7.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <4346C672.4000100@suse.de> <m3k6gp2ivh.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> <4346D9B4.4000203@suse.de> <011e01c5cb85$327b56c0$6401a8c0@pdimov2> <20051007213620.GB9969@compsoc.man.ac.uk> <4346EB4F.7010003@suse.de>

Paolo Carlini wrote:

> I believe in this *specific* case we can at least use mutexes without
> penalizing performances.

The main reason I thought of the CAS solution is that it wouldn't change
the ABI, but hopefully you'll be able to squeeze a mutex in somewhere
without too much trouble.

jon

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- Patch ping
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Peter Dimov
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: Patch ping
  - From: Paolo Carlini

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