[PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

Robert Collins rbcollins@cygwin.com
Tue Sep 17 03:06:00 GMT 2002


On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:34, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> 
> This patch contains a new mutex implementation.
> 
> The advantages are:
> 
> - Same code on Win9x and NT. Actual are critical sections used on NT and
>   kernel mutexes on 9x.

Are you saying it uses critical sections on NT? (i.e. is that MS's
uinderlying implementation for semaphores?)

> - Posix compliant error codes.

I thought we where before. Can you be more specific?

> - State is preserved after fork as it should.

Likewise, I know this has already been implemented. What was not
preserved previously?

> - Supports both errorchecking and recursive mutexes.

This is nice. It shouldn't need a new implementation though. What I mean
is: lets understand the ramifications first.

> - Should be at least as fast as critical sections.

I don't understand how it can be, if semaphores are based on critical
sections, it can't be faster. Or am I wearing my dumb hat today?

Rob

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin-patches/attachments/20020917/ab908d99/attachment.sig>


More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list