[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lock module improvement
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: Lock module improvement |
Date: |
Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:15:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.4 |
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote:
> > Can you propose a reasonable compromise?
>
> Move the macro code into inline function, use the macro to call the
> appropriate function. The function return the error, the macro abort()
> in case an error is returned.
OK, sounds acceptable. What naming convention would you propose? We currently
have
Declaration: gl_lock_define(extern, name)
Initializer: gl_lock_define_initialized(, name)
Initialization: gl_lock_init (name);
Taking the lock: gl_lock_lock (name);
Releasing the lock: gl_lock_unlock (name);
De-initialization: gl_lock_destroy (name);
What should be the names of the 4 inline functions?
Bruno
- Re: Lock module improvement, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/01
- Re: Lock module improvement,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: Lock module improvement, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/02
- Re: Lock module improvement, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/03
- Re: Lock module improvement, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/04
- Re: Lock module improvement, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/14
- Re: Lock module improvement, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/17
- Re: Lock module improvement, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/18
- Re: Lock module improvement, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/18
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/20
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Yoann Vandoorselaere, 2008/08/21
- Re: multithread CPPFLAGS, Bruno Haible, 2008/08/21