On 9/24/14 10:20 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
Also, can't we simply provide some dummy <mutex> / <thread> on mingw
systems and warn loudly about single-threaded stuff?
<mutex> shouldn't be too painful to have a single-threaded shim for. <thread>
and <future> on the other hand seemed like a bit of a nightmare when I looked at
them for the LIBCPP_HAS_NO_THREADS work. It might be good for someone else to
look into it and give their opinion.
Cheers,
Jon
This was a precedent actually - when LLVM started to use atomics,
everyone w/o them ended with non-reentrant LLVM and everything was ok.
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 7:00 PM, David Chisnall
<david.chisn...@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
On 24 Sep 2014, at 05:59, Mueller-Roemer, Johannes Sebastian
<johannes.sebastian.mueller-roe...@igd.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
<atomic> should work both in win32 and pthread versions of MinGW. <mutex> and
<thread> are only supported in the pthread version though.
<atomic> is trivial, as most of the support is provided by the compiler. As of Vista,
Windows comes with some quite sane primitives for implementing <mutex> and <thread>,
so it would only be 1-2 days of work for someone to write the implementation for libc++.
I'd suggest that the total effort that has gone into this thread so far is
close to the amount of effort required to add the missing support...
David
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm...@cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
--
Jon Roelofs
jonat...@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
