Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-22 12:22:54

--- In boost_at_y..., Lie-Quan Lee <llee1_at_l...> wrote:
> At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 16:15:20 -0000,
> Bill Kempf wrote:
> >
> > --- In boost_at_y..., Lie-Quan Lee <llee1_at_l...> wrote:
> > > Hi Bill,
> > >
> > > Is any particular reason why a boost mutex in your code is
> > > implemented by two pthread mutex and one condition variable?
> > > recalled that I saw a comment on this but I did not see a
> > followup.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Check out the latest upload. This is not the case any more.
> >
> I downloaded the latest zip. Yes, your implementation changed. You
> asked this since you did not mentioned this change in the previous
> message. Sorry.
> However, could you explain a little bit why a single pthread mutex
> cannot serve the purpose? You used a pthread mutex and a condition
> vairable.

The pthreads standard doesn't allow for timed locks, so the condition
is needed to simulate this functionality. Further the pthreads
doesn't currently supply a recursive mutex variant, and the next
standard that will does a poor job of defining usage with condition
variables while the Boost.Threads implementation deals nicely with

> It looks like the mutex implementation try to protect a case that a
> thread other than mutex owner to release mutex. If that does happen,
> exception lock_error is thrown. I see the mutex documentation
> "safety". That is the safety provided. Is that right?

That's part of it yes. The next pthreads standard will also contain
a "checked mutex" variant as well that would work here if not for the
lack of timed locks.

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at