Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:22:17 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] change to thread.cc -- need feedback
Message-ID: <20020930212217.GA4780@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20020930151227 DOT GA10898 AT redhat DOT com> <1033420091 DOT 30057 DOT 213 DOT camel AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1033420091.30057.213.camel@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 07:08:10AM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
>On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 01:12, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> I've changed the static declarations in thread.cc to use
>> NO_COPY and things seem to be working better in my build.
>
>I've tweaked this a little. pthread_key::keys needs to be copied.

Ok.

>pthreadNULL doesn't care either way - if NO_COPY is more efficient on
>forks, then it can be made NO_COPY.

NO_COPY is more efficient.  fork doesn't copy the data.

>The pthread_mutex::inializationMutex should be NO_COPY, as the handle
>isn't inheritable anyway (by design).

Would it make sense to use a critical section here, then, instead?

cgf