On Tue, Dec 15, 2015, at 06:12 PM, John McCall wrote: > So, just to complete the loop here: absent Darwin granting public and > backwards-compatible access to an internal API, we need to write this in a > way that falls back on using a heavyweight lock in the presence of > contention. I’m fine with that being a global lock.
Well, no, the activity count idea isn't a spinlock and is perfectly safe. It's actually basically a retain count, but it's protecting write access to the field rather than protecting an object. > Note that Darwin platforms need this to interoperate with the unknownWeak > entrypoints. What does that interoperation look like? -Kevin Ballard _______________________________________________ swift-dev mailing list swift-dev@swift.org https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-dev
