Re: How did gcc handle synthesized atomic vs custom nonatomic setter/getter?
Re: How did gcc handle synthesized atomic vs custom nonatomic setter/getter?
- Subject: Re: How did gcc handle synthesized atomic vs custom nonatomic setter/getter?
- From: Michael Babin <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:12:05 -0500
On Oct 10, 2010, at 7:10 AM, Jerry Krinock wrote:
> I switched a project from gcc to LLVM compiler. I got a bunch of warnings indicating that writable atomic property cannot pair synthesized setter/getter user defined setter/getter. I understand that the answer is given in this thread:
>
> http://www.cocoabuilder.com/archive/xcode/289179-xcode-3-2-3-cannot-pair-synthesized-setter-getter-with-user-defined-setter-getter.html
>
> In deciding how to solve the problem, I'd like to know how gcc solved the problem! It seems there are three choices:
>
> (1) Wrap my non-atomic custom setter/getter code to make it atomic.
> (2) Change my declaration to make it nonatomic.
> (3) Somehow ignore the rule and compile the code as I wrote it.
>
> Which did gcc do?
What would lead you to conclude that gcc "solved the problem"? In general, option 3 (the compiler compiles the code as you wrote it) is in effect.
While I haven't personally seen the exact warning referred to in the earlier thread you are referencing, my understanding from reading that thread is that this is a warning issued by LLVM, so it too will compile your code as you wrote it (unless you have the "Treat Warnings as Errors" option enabled).
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden