Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-22 22:54:23

--- In boost_at_y..., Lie-Quan Lee <llee1_at_l...> wrote:
> At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:31:30 -0500,
> Rich Lee wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 22 Mar 2001 11:19:09 -0600,
> > William Kempf wrote:
> > > Pthreads don't allow for timed locking. So the condition
variable is needed
> > > for simulating this.
> >
> > Ok. To simulate timed locking, you need a condition
> > variable. However, norm locking (do_lock) does not need to
wait on
> > the condition, does it?
> >
> What I means is, maybe there is a way to have two different
> do_unlock(), one for norm locking, the other for timed
> locking. Somehow they could match well and let norm locking not to
> wait on the condition.

I'm not quite following. A "norm lock" does not wait on the
condition at all. It's only inefficiency in comparison to standard
pthread mutexes is that it both locks and unlocks the internal mutex,
as the lock state is tracked by other means. I'm not sure that this
can be optimized out any differently considering the need for the
timed lock, but if you've got a solution I'm more than willing to
look at it.

Bill Kempf

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