On 2 October 2012 07:02, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> The libgcc part of this is OK.
Thanks, I've committed it and closed the PR.
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 11:02:27PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > static inline int
> > __gthread_recursive_mutex_destroy (__gthread_recursive_mutex_t
> >* UNUSED(__mutex))
> > {
> > return 0;
>
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> static inline int
> __gthread_recursive_mutex_destroy (__gthread_recursive_mutex_t
>* UNUSED(__mutex))
> {
> return 0;
> }
>
> Is that indentation right? (the asterisk is in the same column as the
> p
On 1 October 2012 20:22, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> There is no __gthread_recursive_mutex_destroy function in the gthreads API.
>>
>> Trying to use __gthread_mutex_destroy fails to compile on platforms
>> where the mutex
>> types are di
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> There is no __gthread_recursive_mutex_destroy function in the gthreads API.
>
> Trying to use __gthread_mutex_destroy fails to compile on platforms
> where the mutex
> types are different. To avoid resource leaks libstdc++ needs to hack
>
There is no __gthread_recursive_mutex_destroy function in the gthreads API.
Trying to use __gthread_mutex_destroy fails to compile on platforms
where the mutex
types are different. To avoid resource leaks libstdc++ needs to hack
around the missing function with overloaded functions and SFINAE
tric
