Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > On Tuesday 25 July 2006 06:40, Micha Nelissen wrote: >> Vinzent Höfler wrote: >>> because we assume it's non-recursive, that was the whole point. So >>> we should *first* check the count and then may lock/unlock the >>> mutex accordingly. >> Note that these two actions must be atomic. > > Oh, really?
Ehm, no. Got confused a bit :-). Reread the thread, and think your latest implementation as posted here is ok. Micha _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
