On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Johannes Sixt <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 26.10.2016 um 22:26 schrieb Jeff King: >> >> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 10:25:38PM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: >> >>> Am 26.10.2016 um 21:51 schrieb Stefan Beller: >>>> >>>> it is >>>> very convenient to not have to explicitly initialize mutexes? >>> >>> >>> Not to initialize a mutex is still wrong for pthreads. >> >> >> I think Stefan was being loose with his wording. There would still be an >> initializer, but it would be a constant (and in the case of pthread >> emulation on Windows, would just be NULL). > > > And I was loose, too: Not to initialize a mutex with at least > PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITILIZER (if not pthread_mutex_init) is still wrong. >
My words were wrong, I meant statically initialized instead of the need to call a function to initialize a mutex. (For the attribute subsystem, where would that function go? We use attrs all over the place. My current thinking would be in git.c to initialize the Big Single Attr Lock. I feel like that is not very well maintainable though). Sorry for the confusion, Stefan
