Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-23 Thread Robert Collins
On Mon, 2002-09-23 at 22:45, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > I said that my implementation works similar as critical sections (or Chris > mutos). Oh, I must have misread. Sorry. Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-23 Thread Thomas Pfaff
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Robert Collins wrote: > On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 01:47, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I haven't been following very closely. Is the reason why we are not using > > critical sections that TryEnterCriticalSection isn't available anywhere? > > If so, then we can probably fix tha

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-22 Thread Thomas Pfaff
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Robert Collins wrote: > On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 01:47, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > I haven't been following very closely. Is the reason why we are not using > > critical sections that TryEnterCriticalSection isn't available anywhere? > > If so, then we can probably fix tha

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-21 Thread Robert Collins
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 01:47, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I haven't been following very closely. Is the reason why we are not using > critical sections that TryEnterCriticalSection isn't available anywhere? > If so, then we can probably fix that with some assembly programming. Thats a factor, yes

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-20 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:46:15PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: >On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 22:43, Thomas Pfaff wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Robert Collins wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:34, Thomas Pfaff wrote: >> > >> > Thomas, the patch is incomplete. >> > >> > pthread_cond::Timed

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-20 Thread Robert Collins
On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 22:43, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > > > On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:34, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > > > > Thomas, the patch is incomplete. > > > > pthread_cond::TimedWait needs updating as well... > > Yup, but it seems that this was broken

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-20 Thread Thomas Pfaff
On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Robert Collins wrote: > On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:34, Thomas Pfaff wrote: > > Thomas, the patch is incomplete. > > pthread_cond::TimedWait needs updating as well... Yup, but it seems that this was broken on NT before i made my changes, because it was never updated to use Cr

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-20 Thread Robert Collins
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 19:34, Thomas Pfaff wrote: Thomas, the patch is incomplete. pthread_cond::TimedWait needs updating as well... also, please diff against current HEAD, the previous patch failed on the mutex section (I'm not sure why, may be white space changes or something). Cheers, Rob

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-17 Thread Robert Collins
Cool. I'll look into this in more depth tomorrow. Thanks for the updated patch! Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-17 Thread Thomas Pfaff
On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Robert Collins wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH] new mutex implementation 2. posting

2002-09-17 Thread Robert Collins
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