LIU Hao wrote:
> While there are certainly no issues in this code, the pragmas don't look
> quite neat.
I agree that having a pragma around single function call indeed feels a bit off.
> Using the COM-flavor approach which I suggested earlier, it could be
>
> struct WinpthreadsMutex
> {
> const WinpthreadsMutexVtable *vtable;
> };
>
> struct WinpthreadsNormalMutex
> {
> const WinpthreadsMutexVtable *vtable;
> HANDLE Event;
> LONG LockState;
> };
>
> static int WinpthreadsNormalMutexInit (WinpthreadsMutex **wMutex, const
> pthread_mutexattr_t *attr) {
> WinpthreadsNormalMutex *mutex = malloc (sizeof
> (WinpthreadsNormalMutex));
> *wMutex = (WinpthreadsMutex *) mutex;
> if (!mutex) {
> return ENOMEM;
> }
>
> // ...
> }
Yes, this approach does seem reasonable now. In the original version of changes
I sent, `WinpthreadsMutex` simply contained two pointers: one to static
"vtable" and second to allocated mutex-type specific structure. Now that we no
longer have the latter, it does make sense to store "vtable" directly in
mutex-type specific structure.
I'll take care of this tomorrow. Hopefully, it will be the last revision.
>> +
>> + mutex->Event = CreateEventW (NULL, FALSE, FALSE, NULL);
>> +
>> + /**
>> + * The pthread_mutex_init() function shall fail if:
>> + *
>> + * [EAGAIN]
>> + * The system lacked the necessary resources (other than memory) to
>> + * initialize another mutex.
>> + */
>> + if (mutex->Event == NULL) {
>> + free (wMutex);
>> + return EAGAIN;
>> + }
>
> This should be `free (*wMutex)`, and likewise somewhere else:
Nice catch! I simply replaced `mutex` with `wMutex` and overlooked different
indirection levels.
- Kirill Makurin
_______________________________________________
Mingw-w64-public mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-w64-public
