Hi,
On 2015-12-03 16:10:51 -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Is the c.h change above on anything resembling the right track for
> a patch for this? If not, what would such a patch look like?
I think a better path would be to add fallback support for 64bit atomics
- like we already have for 32bit. T
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Is the c.h change above on anything resembling the right track for
>> a patch for this? If not, what would such a patch look like?
>
> It would be nicer if we could come up with an inter
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:10 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Is the c.h change above on anything resembling the right track for
> a patch for this? If not, what would such a patch look like?
It would be nicer if we could come up with an interface that didn't
require #ifdefs everywhere it's used.
So
