On 05/11/11 15:58, Bradley Grainger wrote:
>>> Now, since we are using C++ in HarfBuzz, I wonder if we can use
>>> constructors to initialize the static mutexes automatically?
>>
>> This little gem seems to do the trick:
>>
>> struct hb_static_mutex_t : hb_mutex_t
>> {
>> hb_static_mutex_t (void) {
>> hb_mutex_init (this);
>> }
>> };
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I _think_ this is OK, because critical sections are allowed be initialised in
> DllMain (according to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682583.aspx):
> "There are serious limits on what you can do in a DLL entry point. ... If
> your DLL is linked with the C run-time library (CRT), the entry point
> provided by the CRT calls the constructors and destructors for global and
> static C++ objects. Therefore, these restrictions for DllMain also apply to
> constructors and destructors and any code that is called from them" but "For
> example, DllMain can create synchronization objects such as critical sections
> and mutexes"
Explicitly doing it from DllMain definitely works, since we do that in Cairo.
I'm sure the constructor would do just fine.
> It does seem like this would need a destructor, too, to avoid leaking
> CRITICAL_SECTION objects (unless they're only ever destroyed at process
> shutdown, when it wouldn't be necessary). Of course, then the struct would
> need to be made non-copyable to avoid inadvertent early destruction.
Right. I'll work on that now. Need to streamline my style re use of
constructor/destructor vs explicit init/finish functions.
Also, re USHORT etc, trying to avoid including mutex stuff and the
hb-open-type.h stuff from the same file is very debilitating. Can you please
try to see if #define'ing USHORT to HB_USHORT, etc would work? Lets assume we
always include Windows.h before hb-open-type.h...
Thanks,
behdad
> Bradley
>
_______________________________________________
HarfBuzz mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/harfbuzz
