Hi boost users,

I've discovered that the following doesn't compile.

using namespace boost::interprocess;

interprocess_upgradable_mutex mutex;

interprocess_condition cv;

boost::posix_time::ptime deadline;

{

scoped_lock<interprocess_upgradable_mutex> lock(mutex);

sharable_lock<interprocess_upgradable_mutex> lock2(mutex);

cv.wait(lock); // doesn't compile

cv.timed_wait(lock, deadline); // doesn't compile.

}

It is failing because boost doesn't define the following methods:

void interprocess_condition::do_wait(interprocess_upgradable_mutex &mut);

bool interprocess_condition::do_timed_wait(const syssrv_boost::posix_time::ptime &abs_time, interprocess_upgradable_mutex &mut);

I was thinking of making a basic implementation like so:

Define a scoped_unlock class, which behaves just like scoped_lock except the constructor unlocks and the destructor locks.

Then define the following:

inline void interprocess_condition::do_wait(interprocess_upgradable_mutex &mut)

{
   scoped_unlock<interprocess_upgradable_mutex> unlock(mut);

   interprocess_mutex &internal_mutex = mut.m_mut;
   scoped_lock<interprocess_mutex> internal_lock(internal_mutex);

   this->wait(internal_lock);
}

inline bool interprocess_condition::do_timed_wait

   (const syssrv_boost::posix_time::ptime &abs_time, interprocess_upgradable_mutex &mut)
{

   scoped_unlock<interprocess_upgradable_mutex> unlock(mut);
   interprocess_mutex &internal_mutex = mut.m_mut;

   scoped_lock<interprocess_mutex> internal_lock(internal_mutex);
   return this->timed_wait(internal_lock, abs_time);

}

These functions simply do the following:

unlock the exclusive lock on the interprocess_upgradable_mutex (which is emulated with an internal interprocess_mutex)
then lock the internal interprocess_mutex
Call interprocess_condition::wait or interprocess_condition::time_ wait on the implementation lock which does all the work
unlock the internal interprocess_mutex
relock the exclusive lock on the interprocess_upgradable_mutex

Intuitively, this should work.

Is there anything I missed that would make this an incorrect implementation?

Cheers,

-John