Conversation
|
Thanks for your pull request, @0xEAB! Bugzilla referencesYour PR doesn't reference any Bugzilla issue. If your PR contains non-trivial changes, please reference a Bugzilla issue or create a manual changelog. Testing this PR locallyIf you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR: dub run digger -- build "master + phobos#10594" |
0xEAB
force-pushed
the
shared_allocator_list
branch
from
dc04dbf to
971b4a1
Compare
| AllocatorList!(Factory, BookkeepingAllocator) impl; | ||
| SpinLock lock = SpinLock(SpinLock.Contention.brief); | ||
|
|
||
| // Remove this when 'https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/2156' gets merged |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
does this have a corresponding dmd PR? is it still open?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I haven’t been able to find any successor to that druntime PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we rather rephrase that note or simply remove it?
0xEAB
force-pushed
the
shared_allocator_list
branch
from
971b4a1 to
4732be3
Compare
thewilsonator
left a comment
thewilsonator
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not that you need do it here, but if this allocator is advertised as thread safe then the unit tests should not be system, we should @trusted the minimal interface and have the rest be safe.
I suppose this would need a purpose-built shim as “allocators must be entirely |
Co-authored-by: Elias Batek <desisma@heidel.beer>
0xEAB
force-pushed
the
shared_allocator_list
branch
from
d701391 to
97f3432
Compare
|
That only lists |
4 participants
Revamp of #6465; recreated by applying the changes to current ~master.
The unresolved reviews of the original PR haven’t been addressed yet.