[PATCHES] remove last uses of naked mutexes

Sean Silva chisophugis at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 12:00:24 PDT 2014

LLD uses std::unique_lock and it compiles with MSVC 2012. In general, LLD
uses lots of the std locking stuff. Is there a reason we can't use that?

-- Sean Silva

On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Dylan Noblesmith <nobled at dreamwidth.org>

> There are a few places in LLVM that have weird conditional unlocking
> and a ScopedLock simply doesn't fit.
> So this adds a minimal variation of std::unique_lock to accommodate
> those use cases. I just named it llvm::unique_lock since it copied the
> STL-- should it still use CamelCase instead?
> I also noticed that MutexGuard predates SmartScopedLock, but offers a
> subset of its features aside from a method 'holds()' that has no
> users, so it's basically duplicated code. But which name should be
> kept as the canonical typedef, ScopedLock or MutexGuard?
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20140825/91595cc7/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-commits mailing list