On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I didn't mean to change this bit, it should remain "if >> (!num_threads)". I was in the middle of monkeypatching and didn't >> review the diff carefully enough. But it any case, without this change >> the rest of this diff is your proposed (but segfaulting) change as I >> understand it. > > Sorry for the proposing a sloppy alternative. (I missed one occurrence > of num_threads used in a conditional). > I think the original is still better than littering comments everywhere. I should have said: None of these follow-up diffs of mine (including the added comments) are something I think should be applied, I just inlined that to explain the code in context. Just to make 100% sure I understand you, do you mean you think the original v4 version I posted here makes sense with that explanation or do you have other outstanding concerns?