| FazBrowse GitHub Viewer | Trending | | Home |
| Tools: [Download Repo ZIP] [Original HTTPS Page] |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@pavelfeldman Can you comment on whether the changes to this function look correct to you? ISTM it should be holding the lock when signalling the condition variable.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@bnoordhuis The next time you rebase this against master, could you include addaleax/node@d16e607? Sorry it took me so long to get #6635 landed. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Rebased, with workaround for compilers that don't understand constexpr function pointers: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/3024/ |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Green except for flaky test parallel/test-vm-timeout, tracked in #6727. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
nice. LGTM |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
LGTM |
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
reason for adding the argument name scoped_lock in Wait() but not in Broadcast() or Signal()?
Sorry, something went wrong.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Wait() uses it, the other two just take it to prove ownership (i.e., you can't signal or broadcast if you don't hold the lock.)
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Thanks for answering the questions. Makes sense. LGTM. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
cpplint gets too easily confused by C++ constructs that look like function declarations but aren't. Furthermore, it's arguably a bad rule that conflicts with gcc's -Wunused-parameter flag. PR-URL: nodejs#7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing of the past. PR-URL: nodejs#7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
cpplint gets too easily confused by C++ constructs that look like function declarations but aren't. Furthermore, it's arguably a bad rule that conflicts with gcc's -Wunused-parameter flag. PR-URL: #7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
|
This touches the inspector. Marking as dont-land-on-v6. (for now, idk until we resolve that) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@bnoordhuis 781713d applies poorly on v6 but as far as I can tell the other commit is required to not have more conflicts on the inspector... If possible, separating out non-backportable work would be greatly appreciated by us releasers! |
Sorry, something went wrong.
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing of the past. PR-URL: #7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
|
@bnoordhuis should this be backported? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@thealphanerd It's not necessary per se but it would be good. You'll have to drop the changes to src/inspector_agent.cc. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
@bnoordhuis this doesn't seem to apply cleanly to v6.x either, and #7715 has 213 commits. Could you backport this? |
Sorry, something went wrong.
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing of the past. PR-URL: nodejs#7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
|
For posterity, this landed in v6.x in commit 0593351. |
Sorry, something went wrong.
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing of the past. PR-URL: #7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing of the past. PR-URL: #7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing of the past. PR-URL: #7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing of the past. PR-URL: #7334 Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Trevor Norris <trev.norris@gmail.com>
| Back | FazBrowse Home | New Git URL |
We will be introducing many more critical sections in the upcoming
multi-isolate changes, so let's make manual synchronization a thing
of the past.
CI: https://ci.nodejs.org/job/node-test-pull-request/3022/