On Tuesday 24 February 2015 10:35:37 Keane, Erich wrote: > Sorry for the top-post, Outlook isn't being very kind on its quoting: > > For the mutexes, it seems that choice #1 has already been made for a good > amount of the stack. > > That said, rather than writing our own, I'd prefer to propose > #6: write/expose a mutex library, use the standard ABI, and implement via > std::mutex. > > This seems like the least amount of work for cross-platformability, and will > compile just about anywhere.
std::mutex is a wrapper around pthread_mutex on POSIX systems, so why keep the extra layer of abstraction? Also, that would imply using C++ code from the C SDK library. I don't have a problem with that, but it might be an issue on some systems because, as an item of the C++11 Standard Library, it might not be available on all target systems (think QNX 6.5). GCC's C++ Standard Library is licensed GPLv3 + exception, which some OEMs may not like. No, we need to drop requirement for the C++11 Standard Library. Using C++11 core language features is fine, Standard Library isn't. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
