> On July 23, 2015, 9:20 p.m., Joseph Wu wrote:
> > Since this change removes all the uses of ThreadLocal (outside of 
> > stout/tests/thread_tests.cpp), why not remove the ThreadLocal struct 
> > entirely?

Just to answer this question:
I hadn't removed ThreadLocal as I wasn't sure if external users of stout had a 
dependency on it.
If someone complains we need to point them to the use of thread_local / __thread


- Joris


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/36705/#review92814
-----------------------------------------------------------


On July 22, 2015, 8:23 p.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/36705/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 22, 2015, 8:23 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Benjamin Hindman, Artem Harutyunyan, and Michael 
> Park.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-3119
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-3119
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Libprocess: Replaced ThreadLocal use with thread_local.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/executor.hpp 
> 434d23ac8119e24454f8bc8324d7b26ec62a85c7 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/include/process/process.hpp 
> 8620547148f8a69d5b661eaf08063ca72347b6a4 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/libev.hpp fd26728fe9c0688b82fd75f0bfc83b8d0a3b8581 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/libev.cpp 8960c75010e3ceca3486a1fbb0fdeeffd62f4ec8 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/libevent.hpp 
> 3a0a46ba95db95f4a007ec755012ac969d1c6cd9 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/libevent.cpp 
> 02f9e61c1357e7b450e53b252b49d1979e782ae8 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/process.cpp 
> d6b0d5517964bf7c7276689e801a38b34a3f9db2 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/36705/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> make check with gcc-4.8, gcc-4.9, clang-3.5, clang-3.6
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joris Van Remoortere
> 
>

Reply via email to