[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...
Paolo.
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list