Fixed
Status Update
Comments
ky...@bytedance.com <ky...@bytedance.com> #2
Thank you for this feedback. The team may reach out for more information on triaging or reproducing this issue.
rk...@google.com <rk...@google.com>
rk...@google.com <rk...@google.com> #3
I have tried the example project you've provided, it does not reproduce.
Could you please try running with -Pandroid.useDexArchive=false? This disables the new dexing pipeline, and fallbacks to the old one.
Could you please try running with -Pandroid.useDexArchive=false? This disables the new dexing pipeline, and fallbacks to the old one.
rk...@google.com <rk...@google.com> #4
@Mario Did you get a chance to try the build with -Pandroid.useDexArchive=false flag?
Description
AutoLock
appears to be a custom implementation ofstd::unique_lock/lock_guard
. It does, however, a method namedisLocked()
. There is only one use of the method at the moment:I believe, that has room for improvement. Firstly, even if we checked
isLock()
in general, asisLock()
is not thread-safe, there is no guarantee (in general) that the same thread can then lock it. It is only useful when there is only one thread that locks/unlocks the givenAutoLock
object and the thread wants know whether thelock
is acquired or not by itself. I don't think that's useful. I think the method being public, it has a good chance to confuse external developers.My belief is that the
AutoLock
should be simply replaced withstd::unique_lock
and/orstd::lock_guard
, as many uses of the class do not calllock
orunlock
. And,isLocked()
should be removed. The only call site should be implemented without that.Aside from all mentioned above, I am trying to compile the code with
--enable-thread-safety-checks
, and the first code that blocked the compilation on Linux was the use ofisLocked()
.