EricWF added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D21637#471151, @rmaprath wrote:
> Small side question: so how are `__m_` and `__cv_` initialized in this setup? > is it that `pthread_mutex_lock()` and the like would be able to handle an > un-initialized blob of memory (in a thread-safe way)? Because I don't see a > call to `pthread_mutex_init()` anywhere in the code-path. `__m_` and `__cv_` are initialized during non-static data member initialization. They didn't previously call pthread_mutex_lock(), instead they directly initialized '__m_' and '__cv_' in the constructors initializer list. And according to the current spec we are allowed to use PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER to initialize non-static mutexes. http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ > In cases where default mutex attributes are appropriate, the macro > PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER can be used to initialize mutexes. > The effect shall be equivalent to dynamic initialization by a call to > pthread_mutex_init() with parameter attr specified as NULL, except that no > error checks are performed. http://reviews.llvm.org/D21637 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
