Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:43:38 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: smp@FreeBSD.org, "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Where to initialize certain locks... Message-ID: <3CAA422A.4CAF1CAE@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.20020402110910.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote: > > Initialized to what non-default setting? > > > > Initializing a lock as locked is a bad idea. Initializing it as > > unlocked is, well, automatic. > > No it's not. Then the design is broken. It means you can't statically declare locks. This is one of the reasons the POSIX mutexes sucked in Draft 4, and one of the major reasons the standard version of pthreads was better than draft 4. If this is the case, then there needs to be constructor-intialization available (see the Moscow Center for Supercomputing Activities support for static class declaration of mutex containing classes, for NT and Draft 4 POSIX threads -- I wrote the Draft 4 support). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CAA422A.4CAF1CAE>