Am 4/16/2013 15:01, schrieb Jeff King:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:46AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:
>>> Yeah, that seems sane; my biggest worry was that it would create
>>> headaches for Windows folks, who would have to emulate pthread_key. But
>>> it seems like we already added support in 9ba604a.
>> pthread_key is not a problem, but pthread_once is. It's certainly
>> solvable, but do we really have to?
> I'm not clear on what you are suggesting. That we protect only the main
> thread from recursion, or that we drop the check entirely? Or that we
> implement thread-local storage for this case without using pthread_once?

Anything(*) that does not require pthread_once. A pthread_once
implementation on Windows would be tricky and voluminous and and on top of
it very likely to be done differently for gcc and MSVC. I don't like to go
there if we can avoid it.

(*) That includes doing nothing, but does not include ripping out the
recursion check, as it protects us from crashes.

-- Hannes
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to