Samuel Thibault, on Wed 20 Apr 2016 13:23:46 +0200, wrote: > Samuel Thibault, on Mon 18 Apr 2016 21:50:16 +0200, wrote: > > > I also have the implementation for what glibc calls > > > 'low-level lock' i.e. a wrapper around something like futex. That can be > > > integrated into glibc to replace spin locks where needed as well. > > > > Ah, cool, indeed :) > > > > Also, the spin_lock functions from glibc/mach's spin-lock.h could be > > made to use it instead of calling __swtch_pri(). > > Also, it should now be easy to implement sem_open(), which we still > lack, and that is posing portability issues.
(and sem_init with pshared=1) Samuel
