From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-28 13:26:04
Howard Hinnant wrote:
> The "mixed thread safe" semantics I find interesting and a little
> worrisome. Having some functionality thread safe and some not could
> be seen as confusing.
"Mixed thread safe" is the way of the future. :-) Really. One needn't be
confused by it. For starters, it's the default thread safety level for all
standard types unless specified otherwise.
Having some non-const methods be thread safe is also not that uncommon. A
lock-free queue for example might offer thread safety for push and pop, but
not for operator=. Only atomic types have a thread safe operator=, and
atomicity for UDTs comes at a cost that is rarely justified.
To get back to std::thread, the reason we want some of its operations to be
thread safe is because we have a specific use case where the usual "the user
needs to use a mutex" doesn't work.
In particular, we want, given a std::thread X, thread A (or threads A1...An)
to be able to join it and thread B to be able to cancel it, unblocking A.
This can't be achieved by a simple user-level mutex protection because it
will deadlock. Thread A will lock the mutex protecting X, join and block
with the mutex locked. Thread B will attempt to acquire the mutex in order
to invoke cancel and also block. Unless the target thread exits by itself, A
and B will wait forever.
Given that, we also want to not penalize the non-shared case by introducing
more synchronization than needed. The semantics I outlined take care of
both. If we make cancel() const, we can now state that shared_ptr<const
thread> is a safe and useful solution for the sharing use case.
I've no opinion on detach at the moment.
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