Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add mutex and shared_mutex headers back #35

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2024
Merged

Conversation

salkinium
Copy link
Member

This reverts parts of 4d604ff and adds back only the <mutex> and <shared_mutex> headers back and their dependencies.
This allows me to use the lock guard code with custom types.

@salkinium salkinium merged commit 844ed14 into master May 20, 2024
4 checks passed
@salkinium salkinium deleted the fix/add_mutex_back branch May 20, 2024 17:22
@ckormanyos
Copy link
Collaborator

Hi @salkinium nice work. I will need to update the readme accordingly, which kind of says we have no atomics and no thread support. The docs are now inconsistent with the impl.

I'll make a draft ASAP for your perusal.

Cc: @chris-durand

@salkinium
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah, I thought about updating the docs, but the two PRs are not really functional. Atomics support requires external __atomic_* implementations that are in modm. And the useful threading support consists of only a few template functions. The mutex and shared_mutex code isn't even compiled due to the macros.

At least for the atomics I could add the generated AVR version of the __atomic_* hooks, that would make this actually useful.

@ckormanyos
Copy link
Collaborator

thought about updating the docs, but the two PRs are not really functional.

OK I didn't really know based on the scope of changes. My only real concern (and this seems to not be the case) is that the existing docs are actually wrong.

If there is any added value in making them more right, then OK. But that's optional.

Thank you @salkinium

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants