So it's possible that two different continuations may be sharing a single mutex?
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Alan Carroll <solidwallofc...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > Walt - I think Derek is commenting stylistically, that if no Mutex is the > default for the C API, then it should be the default for the C++ as well. > > What about a user conversion to TSCont in addition to an explicit method? > If you could, writing this up as a Sphinx API doc would be cool. > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Alan Carroll <solidwallofc...@oath.com> > wrote: > >> Indirectly. What's stored in the Continuation is a shared pointer to the >> Mutex. That shared pointer is destructed by TSContDestroy which may in turn >> destruct the Mutex (or not, if there are still references to it). >> >> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >>> I'm pretty sure TSContDestroy() also destroys any mutex for the >>> continuation. (Per our other discussion, I got exasperated trying to >>> make sure of this looking through the code with just vi.) >>> >>>
