On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:34, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > > This patch contains a new mutex implementation. > > The advantages are: > > - Same code on Win9x and NT. Actual are critical sections used on NT and > kernel mutexes on 9x.
Are you saying it uses critical sections on NT? (i.e. is that MS's uinderlying implementation for semaphores?) > - Posix compliant error codes. I thought we where before. Can you be more specific? > - State is preserved after fork as it should. Likewise, I know this has already been implemented. What was not preserved previously? > - Supports both errorchecking and recursive mutexes. This is nice. It shouldn't need a new implementation though. What I mean is: lets understand the ramifications first. > - Should be at least as fast as critical sections. I don't understand how it can be, if semaphores are based on critical sections, it can't be faster. Or am I wearing my dumb hat today? Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
