Boost logo

Boost :

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-04 11:29:44


--- In boost_at_[hidden], scleary_at_j... wrote:
> > As for those wanting to start with vast definitions...
> >
> > I'm not sure why we need to do this. Most definitions are well
known
> > to anyone who's done concurrent programming. Unless we're
striving
> > to come up with new jargon there's nothing to define.
>
> Everyone knows what a "mutex" is. However, the problem comes with
the
> precise definition of a mutex. Is it recursive (i.e., can a thread
lock it
> if it already owns it)? Is it statically-initializable (so it can
be used
> in program startup/shutdown code)? These questions demonstrate the
need for
> a hard definition even of the simplest of synchronization
primitives.

The definition is simple. A mutex is a synchronization primitive
used to allow exclusive access to a shared resource. What you're
talking about isn't the definition, but the interface and semantics.
The design, if you will. This is *precisely* where I'm trying to go
here. I gave a small set of primitives to start with. Now I've
narrowed it even further to a single primitive. Let's decide to
start here and discuss the design and implementation of this
primitive.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk