Thanks, it makes sense,
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:17:37AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> > Also, for confirmation, we do not need to guarantee the thread safety
> > of coverage counters, since they are not meant to be perfectly accurate,
> > righ
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:17:37AM -0700, Alex Wang wrote:
> Also, for confirmation, we do not need to guarantee the thread safety
> of coverage counters, since they are not meant to be perfectly accurate,
> right?
The coverage counters should probably become per-thread. I haven't
done anything a
Looks good to me,
Also, for confirmation, we do not need to guarantee the thread safety
of coverage counters, since they are not meant to be perfectly accurate,
right?
Thanks,
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff
> ---
> lib/lockfile.c | 11
Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff
---
lib/lockfile.c | 11 ++-
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/lockfile.c b/lib/lockfile.c
index 14e553d..50a4e0c 100644
--- a/lib/lockfile.c
+++ b/lib/lockfile.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
#include "coverage.h"
#include "hash.h"
#inc
