Re: [boost] Re: Threads

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-18 12:15:02

From: "William Kempf" <sirwillard_at_[hidden]>
> ...
> I'm familiar enough with pthreads to know that it should be an easy 
> port.  However, I've just discovered that we have a pretty serious 
> flaw in the condition class design that I'd like to shore up before 
> anyone attempts a port from my implementation (it should also be 
> noted that Jeremy and some others have their own implementations that 
> vary from mine to one degree or another, and they've used thread 
> libraries other than Win32 as the basis).
> 
> The problem with the CV is that we've only insured that the 
> associated mutex is locked in the call to wait() but not in the call 
> to notify().  It would be nice if we could have some manner in which 
> we can insure that we've locked the mutex at compile time for both of 
> these, though I think we'll likely have to settle for an exception at 
> run time.  If you've seen Jeremy's documentation maybe you have some 
> thoughts on this?

Earlier I suggested that the lock, wait condition, and notify could be
combined into a single object with a templated constructor.