drizzle-discuss team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Status on non-intel architectures
On Mar 8, 2009, at 7:15 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
Kay Röpke wrote:
just for my benefit: what is the deal with 4.0.2? does it pertain
to C++ or
is it of general nature?
A couple of things:
- It give some warnings (which for us are errors) which are actually
truly spurious and incorrect. I can't think of an example at the
but I believe we had some issues a while ago with "this could be used
uninitialized" and "this is unreachable" - neither of which were
'k, that's mightily annoying
- 4.2 got a lockless tr1::shared_ptr
thank god i'm not doing c++ :)
- 4.0 doesn't have gcc atomics support
does this mean you are relying on compiler support for atomic ops? i
see the section of the gcc 4.2 manual referring to Itanium, what's up
with that? are the docs vague?
it strikes me as odd, considering that most, if not all, modern
operating systems ship this kind of thing in libc. i might be missing
something, though (and am genuinely interested in what that might be,
since i'm working on lock-free data structures right now).
however, if the goal is to save you the ld stub call to libc and
inlining the assembly required, i can see the point.
Other things I'm forgetting... I know we have more than once pushed
that tests fine elsewhere only to have it vomit at the last minute on
Brian's Mac laptop.
the joy of "posix". sometimes the certification makes you feel like
it's just a bullet point ;)
otoh, i don't even want to begin to imagine what the world would look
like if we didn't have at least that...
I tested the "force 4.2 on Mac" patch last night... works like a
I now owe you a beer.
yay! (on both accounts) :)
Software Engineer, MySQL Enterprise Tools
Sun Microsystems GmbH Sonnenallee 1, DE-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitz d. Aufs.rat.: Martin Haering HRB MUC 161028