`xlock.cpp`: Should we use `SRWLOCK` instead of `CRITICAL_SECTION`?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
performance
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 11.1k
- Forks
- 1.7k
- Avg merge
- 4d 15h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 22
Description
In #2317, MSVC STL dropped support for Windows Vista and make SRWLOCK unconditionally used for mutex. However, there're still some implementation details using CRITICAL_SECTION, all of which can be found in xlock.cpp (via xmtx.hpp and xmtx.cpp).
It seems that switching to SRWLOCK doesn't affect ABI (as support for Vista has been dropped). Should we do this?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading stl/src/xlock.cpp and the related paths in stl/src/xmtx.hpp and stl/src/xmtx.cpp. Compare the existing CRITICAL_SECTION implementation with the proposed SRWLOCK usage, then confirm whether the change preserves ABI and behavior after Vista support was dropped.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- cpp
- Domain
- operating-systems
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100