From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-08 13:42:24
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> I don't know, but all of Apple's code specifically clears the
>>> reservation. ;-)
>> It doesn't make (some) Apple's code less broken (msync wise) though.
> Note also that
> doesn't seem to exhibit that paranoia (and supposedly runs just fine
> on the same hardware). I suggest that you uncommit the "fix".
It's good enough for 1.33. A failed lock() is still expensive because I
haven't fixed the upper layers to not throw bad_weak_ptr.
It might be good enough anyway... it's only two more instructions, after
all. stwcx. is uncontended on zero. The paranoia is cheap in this specific
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk