Re: G_LOCK_DECLARE -> G_LOCK_DEFINE

[Sebastian Wilhelmi <wilhelmi ira uka de>]

Hi Ti & Owen,

> i talked about this with owen on irc and the consensus was, please apply
> the s/DECLARE/DEFINE/ part of your patch but leave the _STATIC variants
> in place. the reason for keeping the "static" qualifier within the macro
> definition is to away optimize the whole variable declaration for
> --disable-threads. eventhough that will currently only safe a minor
> amount of memory in glib itself (the 64btyes you mentioned above), with
> 1.2 people will start to use the G_LOCK* interface outside of glib and
> then, unneccessary allocations would increase (if we have the ability to
> work around the extra allocations with the _STATIC variants, we should
> make use of it).

Ok, I'll do it, but I'll add _EXTERN variants too, because otherwise the
non _STATIC ones doesn't make sense, do they?

Bye,
Sebastian
-- 
Sebastian Wilhelmi                   |            här ovanför alla molnen
mailto:wilhelmi@ira.uka.de           |      är himmlen så förunerligt blå
http://goethe.ira.uka.de/~wilhelmi   |