Thanks for your reply. That is really petty, that the standard will be partially useful :( Is there any chance to get your ideas on handling thread priorities? Should I may be move this discussion to the std-c++ list?


Many thanks,
Ovanes



On Feb 7, 2008 1:20 AM, Howard Hinnant <hinnant@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Ovanes Markarian wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I used boost thread library a lot and like it very much. Currently,
> I was reading the C++ Standerd proposal and saw that a thread (as
> well as boost::thread) does not have a priority. Which reason was it
> not to implement the thread priority in boost, and why is it not
> considered in the upcoming standard? I understand this feature is
> rarely required, but if someone suddenly needs to start a real-time
> priority thread he/she will be forced to use a third party lib
> again. Or is there smth. what I miss?


I can answer the std::part.  I attempted to introduce a fairly
rudimentary priority system into the std::thread proposal and it ended
up being sufficiently controversial that I pulled it in order to get
the std::thread proposal to advance.  It is my hope (as a fallback
position) that the "native_handle" interface will allow one to adjust
thread priorities, albeit in a non-portable fashion.

-Howard

_______________________________________________
Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users