Re: [PATCH 1/3] usage: refactor die-recursion checks
- From
Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
- Date
- Apr 16, 2013, 14:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <516D5CA4.7000500@viscovery.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20130416130154.GA17976@sigill.intra.peff.net>
Am 4/16/2013 15:01, schrieb Jeff King:
Show 12 quoted lines
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:46AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > >>> Yeah, that seems sane; my biggest worry was that it would create >>> headaches for Windows folks, who would have to emulate pthread_key. But >>> it seems like we already added support in 9ba604a. >> >> pthread_key is not a problem, but pthread_once is. It's certainly >> solvable, but do we really have to? > > I'm not clear on what you are suggesting. That we protect only the main > thread from recursion, or that we drop the check entirely? Or that we > implement thread-local storage for this case without using pthread_once?
Anything(*) that does not require pthread_once. A pthread_once implementation on Windows would be tricky and voluminous and and on top of it very likely to be done differently for gcc and MSVC. I don't like to go there if we can avoid it.
(*) That includes doing nothing, but does not include ripping out the recursion check, as it protects us from crashes.
-- Hannes