Why not just implement shared_mutex in terms of shared_timed_mutex instead of
factoring out common functionality. I agree that this version is better code
but it has a larger ABI impact.
================
Comment at: include/shared_mutex:175
@@ +174,3 @@
+
+#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER > 14
+class _LIBCPP_TYPE_VIS shared_mutex
----------------
Why > 14 and not >= 17? I don't have a preference, just a question.
================
Comment at: include/shared_mutex:196
@@ +195,3 @@
+
+// typedef __shared_mutex_base::native_handle_type native_handle_type;
+// _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY native_handle_type native_handle() { return
__base::unlock_shared(); }
----------------
Why are these commented out/not getting committed?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D10480
EMAIL PREFERENCES
http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
