On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:46AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote: > > Yeah, that seems sane; my biggest worry was that it would create > > headaches for Windows folks, who would have to emulate pthread_key. But > > it seems like we already added support in 9ba604a. > > pthread_key is not a problem, but pthread_once is. It's certainly > solvable, but do we really have to? I'm not clear on what you are suggesting. That we protect only the main thread from recursion, or that we drop the check entirely? Or that we implement thread-local storage for this case without using pthread_once? -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html