![]() |
Boost : |
From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-03 00:57:13
Peter Dimov wrote:
> There is also the option of implementing pthread_rwlock_* on Windows,
> keeping the higher layer platform-independent. This obviously requires a
> higher layer that agrees with the pthread_rwlock_* interface.
Sorry, but I am not sure If I understand what you mean.
Do you mean the windows version should be implemented on top of
pthread?
In the platform split I took the following route:
1) Native platform API:
this means win32API on windows,
pthread where pthread is considered native
possibly native linux, i.e. semaphores, fork, NPTL, ...
2) pthread API:
For every platform where a pthread lib is available
provide a pthread variant.
I.e.: pthreads-win32, pthread on linux, pthread OSX, ...
In the end the user may choose from 2 library variants on platforms
that have both API's available.
If I may understand your sentence in this respect: Yes of course, we
should and will do this on windows.
Roland
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk