bmalloc StaticMutex's constructor should be constexpr
Created attachment 328854 [details] Patch
Created attachment 328855 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 328855 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=328855&action=review > Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/StaticMutex.h:50 > + std::atomic_flag m_isSpinning = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT; hmm, it is not constexpr (according to the spec). Maybe, we cannot use std::atomic_flag { ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT } since this form is not described in the spec. And even if we use { ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT }, it is still not constexpr. Note that std::atomic<bool> has a constexpr constructor.
(In reply to Yusuke Suzuki from comment #3) > Comment on attachment 328855 [details] > Patch > > View in context: > https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=328855&action=review > > > Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/StaticMutex.h:50 > > + std::atomic_flag m_isSpinning = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT; > > hmm, it is not constexpr (according to the spec). Maybe, we cannot use > std::atomic_flag { ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT } since this form is not described in > the spec. And even if we use { ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT }, it is still not constexpr. > Note that std::atomic<bool> has a constexpr constructor. The one thing atomic<bool> doesn't have in theory is guaranteed lock-free... but in practice it does. Otherwise it's more capable in every way than atomic_flag (until we improve atomic_flag for C++20). So yeah atomic<bool> is better :-)
Comment on attachment 328855 [details] Patch View in context: https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=328855&action=review >>> Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/StaticMutex.h:50 >>> + std::atomic_flag m_isSpinning = ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT; >> >> hmm, it is not constexpr (according to the spec). Maybe, we cannot use std::atomic_flag { ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT } since this form is not described in the spec. And even if we use { ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT }, it is still not constexpr. >> Note that std::atomic<bool> has a constexpr constructor. > > The one thing atomic<bool> doesn't have in theory is guaranteed lock-free... but in practice it does. Otherwise it's more capable in every way than atomic_flag (until we improve atomic_flag for C++20). > > So yeah atomic<bool> is better :-) OK, I'll change it to std::atomic<bool>
Created attachment 337265 [details] Patch
Attachment 337265 [details] did not pass style-queue: ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.cpp:27: Found header this file implements before WebCore config.h. Should be: config.h, primary header, blank line, and then alphabetically sorted. [build/include_order] [4] ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.cpp:42: More than one command on the same line [whitespace/newline] [4] ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.h:43: try_lock is incorrectly named. Don't use underscores in your identifier names. [readability/naming/underscores] [4] ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.h:74: Mutex::try_lock is incorrectly named. Don't use underscores in your identifier names. [readability/naming/underscores] [4] Total errors found: 4 in 38 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Created attachment 337266 [details] Patch
Created attachment 337270 [details] Patch
Attachment 337270 [details] did not pass style-queue: ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.cpp:27: Found header this file implements before WebCore config.h. Should be: config.h, primary header, blank line, and then alphabetically sorted. [build/include_order] [4] ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.cpp:42: More than one command on the same line [whitespace/newline] [4] ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.h:43: try_lock is incorrectly named. Don't use underscores in your identifier names. [readability/naming/underscores] [4] ERROR: Source/bmalloc/bmalloc/Mutex.h:74: Mutex::try_lock is incorrectly named. Don't use underscores in your identifier names. [readability/naming/underscores] [4] Total errors found: 4 in 38 files If any of these errors are false positives, please file a bug against check-webkit-style.
Comment on attachment 337270 [details] Patch r=me
Comment on attachment 337270 [details] Patch Thank you!
Comment on attachment 337270 [details] Patch Clearing flags on attachment: 337270 Committed r230308: <https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/230308>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
<rdar://problem/39212969>