Paul Eggert wrote:
> The word "lock" is good, but (unfortunately) lots of things are
> locked, and there are different forms of locks. Files can be locked
> with flock, for example. "lock.h" could refer to any of these things.
"flock" and "lockf" are the common names of that.
> > and resembles glibc's <bits/libc-lock.h>.
>
> If the module is based on gcc/gthr.h but does only locks, how about
> the name "gthr-lock"?
The lock.* code is so distant from gcc's gthr.h by now that it would be
highly confusing to mention it in the name:
- gthr.h defines __gthread_* functions, whereas lock.h defines gl_*
functions.
- gthr.h names them "mutex", whereas lock.h names them just "lock"
(because for some people, a "mutex" is an inter-process communication
mechanism as well),
- gthr.h does not have read/write locks,
- gthr.h has *_trylock functions,
- The Win32 port of gthr.h's locks is based on CreateMutex, and its
recursive locks are based on CreateSemaphore, whereas in my lock.h
they are based on CRITICAL_SECTION, which are more lightweight (not
suitable for inter-process communication, can't be waited for, doesn't
have a handle).
So I still think the name "lock" is fine.
Bruno
_______________________________________________
bug-gnulib mailing list
bug-gnulib@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
