Re: [boost] [signals/threadsafe version] Atomic disconnects

From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-09 12:39:03

Peter Dimov-5 wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the clarification. This solution forces the use of shared_ptrs
>> and might keep a Foo instance alive a little bit longer. Especially the
>> latter requirement is a no-no for me.
> 
> If thread A is in the middle of a call to foo.f() and thread B attempts to 
> destroy foo, your only options are (1) keep foo alive a little bit longer
> or 
> (2) crash. Of course I may be missing something. 
> 

No, I believe you are correct, that's why I chose my own "architecture
intrusive" way of implementing thread safe signals.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-signals-threadsafe-version--Atomic-disconnects-tp15412841p15943236.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.