From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9564 invoked by alias); 29 Dec 2011 14:53:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 9551 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Dec 2011 14:53:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:53:31 +0000 From: "jb at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/51701] New: Remove reference to Henry Suter's RWLock from documentation Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:54:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jb at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg02750.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51701 Bug #: 51701 Summary: Remove reference to Henry Suter's RWLock from documentation Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: unknown Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: libstdc++ AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org ReportedBy: jb@gcc.gnu.org In the libstdc++ manual at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/ext_io.html it says "If you want to access a filebuf's file descriptor to implement file locking (e.g. using the fcntl() system call) then you might be interested in Henry Suter's RWLock class. " There are a couple issues with this RWLock class: - The code has apparently disappeared from the internet, I was able to locate it only via the Wayback machine. - Having looked at the code, it is racy and wrong: 1) For the code to operate correctly, opening a file and reading and writing stuff from that file would need to be atomic. No target I'm aware of provides such a guarantee. 2) It leaks memory; RWLockFileName is not deleted in the destructor. Thus, I suggest that the sentence I quoted above should be removed.