Kolekce 88 Clang __Atomic_Is_Lock_Free Zdarma

Kolekce 88 Clang __Atomic_Is_Lock_Free Zdarma. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.

Tady Clangd Visual Studio Marketplace

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend... Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … .. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows... Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:.. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on ….. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.

So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019... As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). . So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj)))... Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable... Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019... Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019... Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).

Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019... Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend... If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type... Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks... If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019... Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.. .. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on ….. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type... Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows... Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:.. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable... Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. . Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

#define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))).. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type... As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.

So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type... Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:.. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type... So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks... Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:.. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: . Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on …

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.

Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … .. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.

As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend... So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable.

Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.

If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:

Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks.. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019... As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.

So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable... Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on ….. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019.

Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. #define atomic_is_lock_free (obj) __c11_atomic_is_lock_free (sizeof (* (obj))). Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:.. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows.

Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. So w/e msvc's stl does it's likely not sane or desirable. As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: Devsnek changed the title __atomic_is_lock_free undefined __atomic_is_lock_free undefined on clang on jun 18, 2019. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. If only aligned memory accesses are naturally atomic on a given architecture, misaligned objects of the same type have to use locks. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend. Targos added a commit that referenced this issue on … Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019... Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type.

As you know libc++ currently uses the __gcc_atomic_foo macros, but those aren't available on windows. Which, combined with the builtin returning int, results in a call having the wrong type. Devsnek closed this in ab3174c on jun 21, 2019.

Symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64 clang:. Also afaik msvc leaves the implementation of atomics up to the library, not the frontend.