On 09/05/12 23:51, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 09/05/2012 09:03 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
[...]
Agreed.
But: if the choice is between an implementation which [1] breaks ABI
and [2] performs 20% worse -- even in contrived test cases -- than
another implementation [2] which doesn't break ABI, and performs
better than the first one, why would we even consider the first one?
Breaking the ABI is not an option (unless we rev the version).
But I'm not sure I understand what you think breaks the ABI.
I think Stefan is referring to adding a mutex member variable to the facet in
question and breaking binary compatibility. If that is the case I have confused
things when I suggested exactly that, earlier. A cursory read through the
__rw_facet source shows that inherits from __rw_synchronized in MT builds,
therefore each facet carries its own mutex member.
Liviu
We don't need to add a new mutex -- we can use the __rw_facet
member for the locking. Or did you mean something else?
Martin
--Stefan
--
And now I see with eye serene
The very pulse of the machine.
