Code review comment for lp:~olafvdspek/drizzle/refactor11

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Monty Taylor <email address hidden> wrote:
> What are you accomplishing with the atomic_base -> atomic_impl move.
> (not saying it's bad - I just want to know what you wanted to do here)

Simpler code.

> Why did you remove the empty constructors? They were preventing
> default constructors from writing data to memory locations that we
> didn't want them to write to?

Eh, to what memory would default constructors write?

> Additionally - the pthread_atomics_test was there specifically to test
> that the pthread-based atomic class worked, even if you happened to be
> running the tests on a machine that happened to have real atomic
> support. With the change to use the top-level atomic class, the test
> no longer tests that.

Ah. Does it make sense to test code you're not going to use though?

--
Olaf