[PATCH] Change base mutex implementations to use STL-provided mutexes

Chandler Carruth chandlerc at google.com
Fri Jun 6 18:41:39 PDT 2014


On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Backing up a second, and setting aside all aspects of windows.h, I think
>> this patch is going in the wrong direction at a very fundamental level.
>>
>> I think it is a really huge mistake for LLVM to continue to use its own
>> Mutex class. I don't think you should change it, I think you should remove
>> it, and use std::mutex. I understand that this may be hard, but I think
>> time would be better spent working on those hard problems. I see a few
>> elements that you'll need to address:
>>
>
> Actually this is fine with me.  This is the approach I wanted to take
> originally, but I felt the current approach would be less controversial
> since the semantics remained identical.  If there is enough consensus
> surrounding this approach, I will re-evaluate my strategy.
>

Don't take my email to mean consensus. =D The point of the approach I
suggest is that I think it will allow the right discussions to take place
for consensus to form. We may still end up with something clever in LLVM if
there are really important use cases that can't be solved with anything
else, but I'm holding out hope this isn't the case.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140606/7f8fb06f/attachment.html>


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list