On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 18.23.48, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> The design of the current QMutex is so that it is free in the non contended
> case, so we can use in libraries and it does not have much overhead on code
> that we want to make thread safe, but will most likely not be used with
> t
On Sunday 26 August 2012 15:47:31 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 15.44.05, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > With a Double CAS, it might be possible to do that for the Windows and Mac
> > semaphore solutions. PThread also allows for static initialisation, but it
> > requires a d
On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 15.44.11, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> Which is why I'm asking whether they shouldn't be separate classes sharing
> as much of the implementation as possible.
So the question I need Olivier to answer is:
What are the conditions you envision for casting a QMutex t
On Aug 26, 2012, at 3:47 PM, ext Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 15.44.05, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> With a Double CAS, it might be possible to do that for the Windows and Mac
>> semaphore solutions. PThread also allows for static initialisation, but it
>> requires a
On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 15.44.05, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> With a Double CAS, it might be possible to do that for the Windows and Mac
> semaphore solutions. PThread also allows for static initialisation, but it
> requires a destruction call if the mutex is used
And all of this is so we do
On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 15.13.30, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> The freelist is O(1) and only used when we actually block. The freelist
> should only become a bottleneck if it is itself contented. Which only
> happen in a benchmark which does nothing but locking and unlocking
> mutexes. Any c
On Sunday 26 August 2012 12:12:18 lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2012, at 12:26 PM, ext Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> > On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 11.10.10, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> >> I was in vacation last week without proper internet access.
> >> Many of the changes already had a +2
On Aug 26, 2012, at 12:26 PM, ext Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 11.10.10, Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> I was in vacation last week without proper internet access.
>> Many of the changes already had a +2 from me before, but it went away as you
>> rebased or refreshed the
On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 11.10.10, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> I was in vacation last week without proper internet access.
> Many of the changes already had a +2 from me before, but it went away as you
> rebased or refreshed the changes. This show a problem with the gerrit tool
> and a major
On Saturday 25 August 2012 09:40:07 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Hello
>
> While the discussion on the change to the commit policy is ongoing, I'd like
> to use some of the provisions I made there:
>
> "a Maintainer may self-approve a change even if there are no +1s at all,
> provided that there are
Just went through them all. In general, feel free to ping me if you need a
review. I might not always be able to help, but I'll try :)
Cheers,
Lars
On Aug 25, 2012, at 9:40 AM, ext Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> Hello
>
> While the discussion on the change to the commit policy is ongoing, I'd like
Hello
While the discussion on the change to the commit policy is ongoing, I'd like
to use some of the provisions I made there:
"a Maintainer may self-approve a change even if there are no +1s at all,
provided that there are no -1s either, and provided that the Maintainer post
to the mailing list
12 matches
Mail list logo
