[PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

Robert Collins rbcollins@cygwin.com
Fri Sep 20 05:45:00 GMT 2002

On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 22:43, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:34, Thomas Pfaff wrote:
> >
> > Thomas, the patch is incomplete.
> >
> > pthread_cond::TimedWait needs updating as well...
> Yup, but it seems that this was broken on NT before i made my changes,
> because it was never updated to use Critical Sections when they are
> available.
Uhmm, it was working for me :}. anyway, if you can make that consistent,
I will apply the semaphore based mutex code. I'm not 100% behind it, I
think we need to benchmark it, but lacking the facilities, I'm going to
accept it and tune later.

> > also, please diff against current HEAD, the previous patch failed on the
> > mutex section (I'm not sure why, may be white space changes or
> > something).
> Must wait until tomorrow.
> I will also recreate my pending patches 3 and 4 against current since your
> your patch has broken some parts of them.

Lets talk about those a little first. I'll email separately.

-------------- 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/20020920/bf769159/attachment.sig>

More information about the Cygwin-patches mailing list