#endif
// On Windows, SkBaseMutex and SkMutex are the same thing,
-// we can't easily get rid of static initializers.
-class SkMutex {
+// we can't easily get rid of static initializers. However,
+// we preserve the same inheritance pattern as other platforms
+// so that we can forward-declare cleanly.
+struct SkBaseMutex {
public:
- SkMutex() {
+ SkBaseMutex() {
InitializeCriticalSection(&fStorage);
SkDEBUGCODE(fOwner = 0;)
}
- ~SkMutex() {
+ ~SkBaseMutex() {
SkASSERT(0 == fOwner);
DeleteCriticalSection(&fStorage);
}
SkASSERT(GetCurrentThreadId() == fOwner);
}
-private:
- SkMutex(const SkMutex&);
- SkMutex& operator=(const SkMutex&);
-
+protected:
CRITICAL_SECTION fStorage;
SkDEBUGCODE(DWORD fOwner;)
+
+private:
+ SkBaseMutex(const SkBaseMutex&);
+ SkBaseMutex& operator=(const SkBaseMutex&);
};
-typedef SkMutex SkBaseMutex;
+class SkMutex : public SkBaseMutex { };
// Windows currently provides no documented means of POD initializing a CRITICAL_SECTION.
-#define SK_DECLARE_STATIC_MUTEX(name) static SkBaseMutex name
-#define SK_DECLARE_GLOBAL_MUTEX(name) SkBaseMutex name
+// As a result, it is illegal to SK_DECLARE_STATIC_MUTEX in a function.
+#define SK_DECLARE_STATIC_MUTEX(name) namespace{} static SkBaseMutex name
#endif