Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrey Semashev (andysem_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-08 16:29:21

Hello Eric,

Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 10:03:40 PM, you wrote:

> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Eric Niebler wrote:
>>> Looks like this change is causing a linker error on at least one
>>> platform.
>> So this is the i386 problem (why is this the default for g++ in this day and
>> age remains a mystery to me). We can fix it on the atomic_count side by
>> supplying an assembly implementation that assumes 486+ regardless of the
>> target, as is done with sp_counted_base. Or we can run the SunOS tests for
>> i486 or better. Which one should be it?

> I'm not familiar with "the i386 problem". Is there an easy way to reuse
> the solution for sp_counted_base? Seems to me like we should be
> consistent, but it's ultimately your call.

Why can't we use the old atomic_count and sp_counted_base
implementations (i.e. asm, atomicity.h and interlocked functions)?

Best regards,
 Andrey                            mailto:andysem_at_[hidden]

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at