Re: [PATCH] compat: Allow static initializer for pthreads on Windows

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Johannes Sixt [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The implementation under discussion (well we did not discuss the
implementation a
whole lot yet) ...

There's not a whole lot to discuss: it must be rewritten from scratch (it's
not just the memory barriers, it is everything else, too). But time is much
better spent on an attr_start() solution.

-- Hannes

Ok, so I've been reading this thread. I don't understand your
objections to emulating in this way.. Could you clearly spell out why
you believe this solution isn't acceptable? So far all I've understood
was "it's not critical sections" and "it penalizes Windows too much"
but... If Windows cannot statically initialize a pthread mutex, then
we *have* to dynamically initialize it somewhere. This solution adds a
single check before each lock and is safe due to use of memory
barriers. Yes, this will cost a tiny bit extra overhead for each use
of "pthread_mutex_lock" but I fail to see how that is a huge
penalty...

So I'm trying to understand if that really is your only concern,
because I don't actually buy that it is a huge overhead to pay.

I agree with Stefan that there isn't really a great place to put a
dynamic initialization.

To be clear I am trying to understand the objections since so far all
I have read is "this is bad, and I object" without clearly explaining
reasoning.

Regards,
Jake