majnemer added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/__threading_support:300-305
+int __libcpp_recursive_mutex_init(__libcpp_mutex_t *__m)
+{
+ InitializeSRWLock(__m);
+ return 0;
+}
+
----------------
compnerd wrote:
> majnemer wrote:
> > I don't think you can use slim rw locks for recursive locks. I think we
> > will need to use `CRITICAL_SECTION` for those. std::recursive_mutex can't
> > be used with std::condition_variable AFAIK so all you need (I think) is
> > recursive versions of `__libcpp_mutex_...`
> >
> > Recursive locks should be used far less frequently which makes it valuable,
> > IMO, to use slim rw locks for the non-recursive mutex implementation.
> You are absolutely right. That was something that I looked at originally and
> went with the CS. However, the overhead of a tagged struct is 5 or 9 bytes
> (sizeof(void *) + 1) bytes (ignoring padding for MS ABI). Going with that
> should give the benefits of always being able to properly initialize the CS
> instead of the kludge.
Er, isn't the overhead much more than that? IIRC, `CRITICAL_SECTION` is quite
large. You'd be making all the users of `std::mutex` pay for the space of
`std::recursive_mutex`...
Repository:
rL LLVM
https://reviews.llvm.org/D28220
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
