[lldb-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: LLVM should require a working C++11 <thread>, <mutex>, and <atomic>

Jonathan Roelofs jonathan at codesourcery.com
Wed Sep 24 09:44:29 PDT 2014

On 9/24/14 10:20 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
> Also, can't we simply provide some dummy <mutex> / <thread> on mingw
> systems and warn loudly about single-threaded stuff?
<mutex> shouldn't be too painful to have a single-threaded shim for. <thread> 
and <future> on the other hand seemed like a bit of a nightmare when I looked at 
them for the LIBCPP_HAS_NO_THREADS work. It might be good for someone else to 
look into it and give their opinion.


> This was a precedent actually - when LLVM started to use atomics,
> everyone w/o them ended with non-reentrant LLVM and everything was ok.
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, David Chisnall
> <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2014, at 05:59, Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian <Johannes.Sebastian.Mueller-Roemer at igd.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>>> <atomic> should work both in win32 and pthread versions of MinGW. <mutex> and <thread> are only supported in the pthread version though.
>> <atomic> is trivial, as most of the support is provided by the compiler.  As of Vista, Windows comes with some quite sane primitives for implementing <mutex> and <thread>, so it would only be 1-2 days of work for someone to write the implementation for libc++.
>> I'd suggest that the total effort that has gone into this thread so far is close to the amount of effort required to add the missing support...
>> David
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

More information about the lldb-dev mailing list