Yes. I have seen reference count numbers in the high teens for some mutexes.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Walt Karas <wka...@oath.com.invalid> wrote: > 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.) > >>> > >>> >
