[Gc] About "Disclaim" patch for BDWGC

Petter Urkedal urkedal at nbi.dk
Sat Aug 6 10:54:35 PDT 2011

On 2011-08-06, Ivan Maidanski wrote:
> It looks like Hans is on a vocation these days. And, I'm going too in 2 weeks... So, let's wait...


> Yes, it would be nice if prepare clean patch for the HEAD.

I'll do that, but I'll keep using the intermediate "clean" branch until
you are ready to accept the patch to avoid unnecessary merge conflicts.

> Here's another question (since you mentioned auto-generated files, I'd like to hear you option):
> As might notice, I've moved libatomic_ops out of bdwgc (as the former has no dependencies to libgc and has standalone usage). What do you think would it be ok for bdwgc clients on Unix hosts (or we'd better release still continue to release bdwgc with libatomic_ops included)? How the build scripts in bdwgc should be adjusted?

In my opinion it makes sense to have libatomic_ops as a separate
package.  The configure script already detects an external libatomic_ops
if present, and uses that by default.  When libatomic_ops is removed we
can simplify configure.ac a bit.  (We could leave the logic as it is to
support extracting libatomic_ops under bdwgc and build both at the same
point, but I don't see a big point in doing that.)


More information about the Gc mailing list