Re: Boost.Threads draft library submission

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-15 09:30:29

--- In boost_at_y..., Doug Gregor <gregod_at_r...> wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2001 05:51, you wrote:
> [snip]
> > 2) I especially need folks looking at the pthread implementation.
> > What I have compiles and works with VC++ using a Win32 port of
> > pthreads.  However, it periodically dead locks (running both the
> > example program and the test program) and I've yet to figure out
> > why.  I don't see an error in the implementation so the problem 
may
> > even be in the Win32 port, so if the problem can't be reproduced 
on
> > other platforms I'll need Win32 users to help out here.
> 
> It builds fine on x86 Linux with a few minor changes:
> 	1) Use forward slashes instead of backslashes when including 
headers. 
> Windows will support #include <boost/header.hpp>, but not all Unix 
systems 
> (Linux included) support #include <boost\header.hpp>.

Jeremy Siek already pointed this out to me and I attempted to change 
all of them.  Which specific ones did I miss?

> 	2) xlock.hpp has an extra "typename" in line 61 that GCC 
complains about.

Another one that Jeremy pointed out and I must have missed.  I'll 
correct both of these yet today.
 
> However, I have reproduced the deadlock problem with the example 
program.

With what sort of frequency?  Do you have any way of telling where it 
deadlocks for me?  Obviously I've got a race condition here and will 
have to track it down and fix it.

> A compiler at GCC's highest warning level (-ansi -pedantic -Wall) 
results in 
> some signed/unsigned comparison warnings in the pthread handling 
code. 
> Commonly the condition:
> 
> if (milliseconds == -1)
> 
> appears, where "milliseconds" is an unsigned int. Is this 
safe/intended?

Intended.  I'm not 100% sure about safe.  If this is not portably 
safe I'll need to change this to use numeric_limits<>::max.

Thanks for the feedback.

Bill Kempf