There must be better names for those variables than `gate1` and `gate2`.
It's weird that the condition_variable::wait_until() loops aren't using the
predicate versions of wait_until() so they wouldn't need the loops. Even in
C++98 mode where you'd have to name the predicates, it seems like it'd be worth
it.
The fix itself looks correct to me.
================
Comment at:
test/std/thread/thread.mutex/thread.mutex.requirements/thread.sharedtimedmutex.requirements/thread.sharedtimedmutex.class/try_lock_until_deadlock_bug.pass.cpp:28
@@ +27,3 @@
+const int total_readers = 2;
+std::atomic<int> readers_started = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(0);
+std::atomic<int> readers_finished = ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(0);
----------------
Nit: Can't you initialize this as:
```
std::atomic<int> readers_started(0);
```
?
================
Comment at:
test/std/thread/thread.mutex/thread.mutex.requirements/thread.sharedtimedmutex.requirements/thread.sharedtimedmutex.class/try_lock_until_deadlock_bug.pass.cpp:31
@@ +30,3 @@
+
+// Wait until the reader_one has a read lock then attempt to get the write
lock.
+void writer_one() {
----------------
This comment is out of date.
================
Comment at:
test/std/thread/thread.mutex/thread.mutex.requirements/thread.sharedtimedmutex.requirements/thread.sharedtimedmutex.class/try_lock_until_deadlock_bug.pass.cpp:45
@@ +44,3 @@
+ // Attempt to get the read lock. writer_one should be blocking us because
+ // writer_one is blocked by reader_one.
+ m.lock_shared();
----------------
"blocked by main()."
http://reviews.llvm.org/D8796
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
