 |
 |
OK, I have an issue with this slavish adherence to C+11 undefined behavior talk. Ya know, sometimes undefined behavior is just perfectly OK as it is in this particular case. This is an optimization flag that does nothing more than try to reduce the number of duplicate messages that are being sent. It's perfectly OK to send them we just want to reduce them. The place where the memory location is set without a lock is high traffic and we don't want a lock, we don't even want an atomic, and we don't care if we get undefined behavior. That is not the point. We are trying to save compute cycles in a high use path and optimize a bit in a lower use path. So, I'm not pulling this in. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/issues/167#issuecomment-63408496 ######################################################################## Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link: https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1