[Patch (preview)] libstdc++/24469

Paolo Carlini pcarlini@suse.de
Fri Sep 1 11:45:00 GMT 2006

Richard Guenther wrote:

>I'm only concerned about using _Atomic_word in place of size_t and their
>possible different size and alignment requirement.  Though it looks safe
>from looking at the atomic_word.h files we have:
Yes, I think it is, we are doing much worse things about alignment in 
the current basic_string... ;) Also, note that, for now, at least, we 
are not suggesting mt_allocator for all the possible targets in the 
world, but essentially for gnu/linux and a bit more (the are nasty 
issues about static ordering, things like that)

By the way, updated version of our work forthcoming...


More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list