A quick word about the pthreadrope7 fails.

[Dhruv Matani]

On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 19:28, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Dhruv Matani wrote:
> 
> >Why so(size_t instead of unsigned long/long)?
> >  
> >
> It's better, go ahead and, please, don't ask stupid questions, like 
> "what is the size on 64-bit machines?"

I don't think that it's a stupid question. Firstly, I do not have access
to a 64-bit machine. Secondly, after you told me stuff like long was
32-bits on 32-bit platforms, and 64-bit on 64-bit ones, I wanted to be
sure what I was doing. After all, I would be held responsible for any
changes that I make to the code. the least I can do is make sure that I
know exactly what I'm doing. If you still think that it was a stupid
question, then I'm sorry.

I have attached the patch with size_t as the type, and removed _Bitmap_t as you
said.

Is this Ok?


> 
> Paolo.
-- 
        -Dhruv Matani.
http://www.geocities.com/dhruvbird/

The price of freedom is responsibility, but it's a bargain, because
freedom is priceless. ~ Hugh Downs
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: patch6_bitalloc_15102004_dhruv
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 15792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/attachments/20041015/95430a3d/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
2004-10-15  Dhruv Matani  <dhruvbird@gmx.net>
	
	* ext/bitmap_allocator.h: Change all references fron unsigned int
	to size_t. This should fix alignment issues for IA64. Fix failure
	for pthread-rope7.cc by nulling out the destructor for
	__mini_vector<>.
	* src/bitmap_allocator.cc: Change to size_t.