>From: Mark Heath
>
>I assume I'd need to use glib but it appears to be broken on my system.
>I also tried the gcc atomic operations but I've only got gcc 4.0.1.
>
>I've also sig_atomic_t but I've got no idea if it's reading and
>incrementing as an atomic action. The read and increment is such
> As you can imagine a program that relies on 'fast' mutex behaviour
> will not function correctly on a system which uses 'error checking'
> (i.e. ownership) mutexes (the reverse case might work - I haven't
> tried it ;)).
A program the relies on undefined behaviour is
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011, Alan Cox wrote:
> It's a very sane default because the performance difference is
> astronomical
I disagree. I do not see how having a thread which obtained a lock
be the one which releases it causes any performance change. The same
amount of unlock
