rmaprath added inline comments.
================
Comment at: src/fallback_malloc.cpp:37
class mutexor {
public:
----------------
EricWF wrote:
> rmaprath wrote:
> > EricWF wrote:
> > > Can't we replace this class with `std::mutex` directly?
> > Again, I should've included more context to the patch :(
> >
> > The `mutexor` here is supposed to degrade to a nop when threading is
> > disabled. I think we cannot use `std::mutex` without threading support.
> >
> > Will update the patch with more context.
> We cannot use `std::mutex` without threading support but I would still rather
> use it.
>
> I would `typedef std::lock_guard<std::mutex> mutexor` when threading is
> enabled and otherwise I would just `#ifdef` all usages away.
>
> Also please add `_LIBCPP_SAFE_STATIC` to the heap_mutex declaration.
Hmmm, using `std::mutex` here breaks the shared library builds of `libcxxabi`.
The problem is that methods like `std::mutex::lock()` and `~std::mutex()` are
only declared in the `<mutex>` header, with the implementation going into the
dylib.
I was just about to update the patch because it worked for all my other
configurations, but those configurations are either static builds or ones that
suppress the `-Wl, -z defs` linker option passed to the shared library builds
by default (this is an inherited option).
Perhaps it's time to get rid of `-Wl, -z defs` for all the `libcxxabi`
configurations? That makes sense if `libcxxabi` is inherently dependent on
`libcxx`.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27575
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
