Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/09/12/13:34:01
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 01:23:02PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 07:21:04PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 12:56:41PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 06:48:12PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 06:40:31PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 10:00:11PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> >> >> > + if (iswinnt)
> >> >> > + InitializeCriticalSection (&criticalsection);
> >> >> > + else
> >> >> > + {
> >> >> > + this->win32_obj_id =::CreateMutex (&sec_none_nih, false, NULL);
> >> >> > + if (!win32_obj_id)
> >> >> > + magic = 0;
> >> >> > + }
> >> >>
> >> >> Could somebody give me a short hint why we're using critical
> >> >> sections on NT only? I need some three word only description...
> >> >> something memorable...
> >> >
> >> >Whoops, is the fact that TryEnterCriticalSection() is only
> >> >available since NT4 the reason, perhaps???
> >>
> >> Apparently.
> >>
> >> Cygwin's muto class actually does a sort of critical section and has
> >> TryEnterCriticalSection capabilities.
> >>
> >> I don't think that mutos are necessarily general purpose enough for
> >> this but maybe we could do something similar. Or we could probably
> >> roll our own version of TryEnterCriticalSection.
> >
> >Don't worry. I'm just asking to know how to name the new wincap
> >flag for that stuff. :-)
>
> I *am* concerned about YA performance hit on Windows 9x, though. I'd like
> to avoid that if possible.
Sure but you can't simply create your own version of TryEnter...
since it's an atomic operation inside the NT kernel. Since we're
just beginning with 1.3.4 I'm thinking we don't need to worry
today. Tomorrow is early enough to worry...
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.
- Raw text -