Thanks, I'd hate to patch this myself every release. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/THRIFT-1748
Oh and sorry, I couldn't find "attach" in JIRA, maybe I don't have permissions, so I had to post the code. On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Henrique Mendonça <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Bud, > > I wonder why we are not using boost mutex and scoped mutex instead but > those two macros are probably not necessary anyways. > Would you create a patch and copy/adapt those comments to the thrift Mutex > classes themselves? > Thank you! > http://thrift.apache.org/docs/HowToContribute/ > > Henrique > > On 7 November 2012 00:19, Bud Bundy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm using version 0.9.0. The following code in > thrift/concurrency/Mutex.h > > is causing me great headaches: > > > > // A little hack to prevent someone from trying to do "Guard(m);" > > // Such a use is invalid because the temporary Guard object is > > // destroyed at the end of the line, releasing the lock. > > // Sorry for polluting the global namespace, but I think it's worth it. > > #define Guard(m) incorrect_use_of_Guard(m) > > #define RWGuard(m) incorrect_use_of_RWGuard(m) > > > > The global macro is interfering with another library I'm using that also > > defines a Guard class within their own namespace. So, no, I don't think > > it's worth it. I think it's a bug. I can patch the file by removing > those > > two lines, but any way this can be fixed in the trunk? > > > > Thanks. > > >
