On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:30:04 +0100, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gabe Schaffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The problem is a different one: the COND_INIT macro just passes a condition location, the mutex is created in a second step, which isn't needed for windows. OTOH a mutex aka critical section is needed separatly.
So we should probably define these macros to be:
COND_INIT(c, m) COND_DESTROY(c, m)
see src/tsq.c for usage.
Does win32 require more info to create conditions/mutexes or would these macros suffice?
Win32 doesn't require anything else, but I don't think I like this
idea. If you do COND_INIT(c, m) and Win32 ignores the 'm', what
happens when some code goes to LOCK(m)? It would work under POSIX but
break under Win32.
The mutex in COND_INIT is specific to that condition, it can't get reused in unrelated places. But it is used to synchronize {push,pop, wait_for}_entry. How is e.g. tsq.c:push_entry() synchronized then on Win32?
... I think there should be an opaque struct that contains c,m for POSIX and c for Win32.
Works for me too, modulo above sync issues.
GNS
leo
