hctim added a comment. In D61923#1502245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61923#1502245>, @jfb wrote:
> Seems a shame to duplicate mutex again... Why can't use use the STL's version > again? It doesn't allocate. We can't use `std::mutex` as we must be C-compatible (and can't make the strong guarantee that `std::mutex` is header-only), see https://reviews.llvm.org/D60593#inline-537276. We also are trying to stay independent of `pthread` for platform-independentness. We also can't use a `sanitizer_common` variant as we don't want to pull in the entirety `sanitizer_common` as a dependency. Basically, the roadmap is to create a shared mutex library for `sanitizer_common`, `gwp_asan` and `scudo` to all use. In D61923#1502245 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61923#1502245>, @jfb wrote: > Tests? Added some unit tests. ================ Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/gwp_asan/mutex.h:32 +private: + void yieldProcessor(uint8_t Count); + void yieldPlatform(); ---------------- jfb wrote: > `uint8_t` seems easy to inadvertently truncate. If you want to restrict size, > make it a template and refuse to compile above a certain size. It's always > `10` anyways. Seeming as this is an entirely-internal number, I've made it a global instead. ================ Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/gwp_asan/mutex.h:81 + else + yieldPlatform(); + ---------------- jfb wrote: > This won't compile if `__unix__` isn't defined. Should be guarded by `if (COMPILER_RT_HAS_GWP_ASAN)` at `lib/gwp_asan/CMakeLists.txt:20`, but have added explicit error condition here. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61923/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61923 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
