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

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Olaf van der Spek <email address hidden> wrote:
> 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?

Monty?

--
Olaf