This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: spinlocks
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:34:03PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Well, the patch isn't too bad. There are a few things you'll have to
> change:
>
> - the name _lt_spinlock_t isn't good. We already have too many spinlocks.
> I'd suggest rather something in the line of __lock_object_t or so (better
> proposals are welcome). The initializer will have to be renamed
> appropriately.
That's fine.
> - I would not want the $NEWTYPE to be a struct for architectures which
> don't have to do this.
Why not? It prevents people thinking they know what it is, assigning a
value to it, and breaking hppa. Perhaps people will not do that anyway
if the type is not `int', but I don't see that it costs anything.
> - related, the definition of __libc_lock_define_initialized etc must be
> optimized for everything != hppa just as before. This probably means
> introducing another macro stating that the initializer is null.
Fine.
> - the return type for your test() function must be int not long int.
> And while we're at it, this name is also not very good. test is a far
> too common identifier.
No problem with that either.
> I think that's it.
Thanks for the feedback. I'll revise the patch.