qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Stitcher <astitc...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: qpid (cpp) on solaris + Sun Studio 12
Date Fri, 30 May 2008 19:51:47 GMT

On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 09:33 -0400, Alan Conway wrote:
> Manuel Teira wrote:
> [snip]
> > So, shouldn't we use different pthread_once_t variables for each of the 
> > initializers?
> Absolutely, well spotted!
> > Even more interesting, how can this work on linux, for example?
> I'd hazard a guess that on linux both attributes start off with all-0 values, 
> all-0 is is the correct value for one of the two attributes, and by sheer dumb 
> luck things are declared/linked in such an order that it's the other attribute 
> that gets initialized first under the once_control.

Actually a better question is why RW locks are initialised like this in
the first place.

As RW locks don't need to set any initial attributes you don't need the
whole initialisation machinery for them. It's only there because we
needed recursive locks for the standard mutex.

I think there might have been a little bit of unthinking copy and paste
going on here.

Of course we should also be trying to eliminate all need for recursive
locks as a design thing, but at least under Linux they aren't much less
efficient than non recursive ones.


View raw message