[boost] Re: [Boost.Thread] mutex Win32 implementation changes

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 11:39:36

Peter Dimov wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Peter Dimov wrote:
> >
> >> Is a CRITICAL_SECTION "posix-safe"? A HMUTEX?
> >
> > I have no idea.
> 
> Hm. It'd be useful to know whether your swap-based mutex >= CRITICAL_SECTION
> (minus the recursivity, of course).

It'd be useful to have authoritative pseudo-code of their 
implementations (I mean all windows versions/service-packs/whatever). 
We could analyze it, then. Again, you could easily make swap-based 
mutex "posix safe" via indirection and reuse of impl. The race with
respect to the state of auto-reset event and impl reuse is harmless.

regards,
alexander.