Re: plea for review

On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Alexander Larsson wrote:

> Before starting to review the actual locking i'd like to state that the
> following locking primitive is completely bogus:
> static gint type_rw_lock = 0;
> #define	G_READ_LOCK(rw_lock)	{ if (*(rw_lock)!=0) g_error (G_STRLOC": read lock invalid (lock=%u)", *(rw_lock)); *(rw_lock)=1; }
> #define	G_READ_UNLOCK(rw_lock)	{ if (*(rw_lock)!=1) g_error (G_STRLOC": read unlock invalid (lock=%u)", *(rw_lock)); *(rw_lock)=0; }
> #define	G_WRITE_LOCK(rw_lock)	{ if (*(rw_lock)!=0) g_error (G_STRLOC": write lock invalid (lock=%u)", *(rw_lock)); *(rw_lock)=2; }
> #define	G_WRITE_UNLOCK(rw_lock)	{ if (*(rw_lock)!=2) g_error (G_STRLOC": write unlock invalid (lock=%u)", *(rw_lock)); *(rw_lock)=0; }
> There are so many problems with it I won't even get started on it. I
> assume you're gonna replace this later with some real thing?

heh ;)

these are debugging primitives that should point out obvious
things like G_READ_LOCK(); G_READ_LOCK(); use

static GStaticRWLock type_rw_lock = G_STATIC_RW_LOCK_INIT;
#define	G_READ_LOCK(rw_lock)	g_static_rw_lock_reader_lock (rw_lock)
#define	G_READ_UNLOCK(rw_lock)	g_static_rw_lock_reader_unlock (rw_lock)
#define	G_WRITE_LOCK(rw_lock)	g_static_rw_lock_writer_lock (rw_lock)
#define	G_WRITE_UNLOCK(rw_lock)	g_static_rw_lock_writer_unlock (rw_lock)

if you prefer the real thing ;)
note however that pure testing doesn't do too much good currently,
as a couple of other places in are still not MT safe,
so the main purpose in me sending gtype.c out was in fact just
theoretical proof reading ;)

> / Alex


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]