Re: [Gc] Patches resubmission 5
ivmai at mail.ru
Thu Jun 11 23:07:50 PDT 2009
"Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm at hp.com> wrote:
> Thanks. I committed this patch, with the following minor changes:
> 1) I changed the comment for GC_mark_mutex_waitcnt. I believe its value is waiters+1, not waiters-1, i.e. with 1 waiter, it's 2.
> 2) I made all accesses to this variable atomic. I believe it can currently be incremented outside a lock. Thus any access potentially races with it. I'd like to get rid of all data races (e.g. by using atomic accesses), or at least strongly comment any remaining ones. This gets us closer to the official Posix and C++0x/C1x rules,
> which I think either are, or soon also will be, Microsoft's official rules.
Ok. But, please, correct the typo "GC_load(...)" -> "AO_load(...)" in GC_release_mark_lock().
> I also ended up changing all the GC_THREADS tests in misc.c so they checked THREADS
> instead. This corrects an issue introduced with the previous patch I noticed when I tested on Windows. GC_THREADS is the preferred way for the user to specify a threads configurations, but it wasn't intended to be used internally, and not all Makefiles currently set it.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > ...
More information about the Gc