[Gc] Should libatomic_ops be inside bdwgc?

Petter Urkedal urkedal at nbi.dk
Sun Aug 14 10:48:14 PDT 2011

On 2011-08-14, Ivan Maidanski wrote:
> Hi Petter,
> Thank you. I'm really new to Git (and the distributed model), and I'm trying to understand Git best practices. (Having 4 active participants in some one project, I've failed to serialize commit even with forcing them to do rebase on every push, so I've finally decided to leave the commit network as-is.)

Hi Ivan,

If you skip the Github model and keep contributor branches, then you
should be able to rebase yourself just before merging, and use
"git merge --ff ..." to make sure it's fast-forward.  But as I pointed
out, there may be something attractive productivity-wise about the
Github model.  I like the extra channel of communication it brings.

> About C++0x and lbatomic_ops:
> You're trying implement C++0x atomic API on top of libatomic_ops and then switch atomic calls in bdwgc to it, right?
> Could you point me to C++0x atomic API spec, please?

Yes, that's the intention.  The point is that it may take time to get
wide implementation across compilers and architectures, so we would
build on all the porting work which has gone into libatomic_ops in the
meantime.  Once the calls are converted in bdwgc, we could check for
atomics.h and fall-back to the libatomic_ops.  My reference was the C1X
update at https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1349.htm


More information about the Gc mailing list