Also, can't we simply provide some dummy <mutex> / <thread> on mingw systems and warn loudly about single-threaded stuff?
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 -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
