On 2/23/07, Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the new structure we have shifted everything up because __lock is
> now an integer, instead of a _pthread_fastlock with a 4 word lock
> structure. Should I add padding after "__lock" e.g. int pad[3]?
Yes, you must dedicate those words to compatibility only.
Unfortunatly, due to alignment the NPTL pthread_cond_t grows larger
than the Linuxthreads version when I add the padding. This is the only
structure the grows larger in size than before. Is there any way I can
avoid adding the padding?
Does this scenario exist:
__lock = 1, __futex = 1, __total_seq = 1, __wakeup_seq = 1, everything
else zero?
If it doesn't then I *could* detect the old style lock initialization
without adding the padding.
Cheers,
Carlos.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
