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

[Alp Toker]

On 07/06/2014 04:09, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com 
> <mailto: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.

I'm 100% behind what Chandler said. I think some elements of your patch 
were cool but it was going to be a long, bumpy and verbose ride from 
there to a destination we don't even want to necessarily visit.

We don't after all have strong locking needs or tight concurrency so 
let's see if we can reduce complexity and make std::mutex (or none at 
all) work :-)

Alp.

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts