Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-04-03 16:08:31

--- In boost_at_y..., Lie-Quan Lee <llee1_at_l...> wrote:
> At Tue, 3 Apr 2001 14:51:46 -0400,
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > Okay so far...
> >
> > > so you'd prefer to
> > > specify Unchecked so the known behavior is a deadlock.
> >
> > That assumes that a deadlock is a useful intended behavior. Is it?
> > Specifying "undefined" is sometimes a better alternative to "some
> > really bad behavior", because it allows an implementation to do
> > more reasonable (e.g. throw an exception).
> "undefined" could be an alias of "guaranteed dead lock" depending
> the implementation in pthreads. Are you talking about Boost.Threads
> have an "undefined" mutex whose "implementation to do something
> more reasonable"?

No, undefined does _not_ mean "guaranteed dead lock" by the POSIX
definition (so what specific implementations do is irrelevant). The
two policies are not synonymous. One policy is a strict policy of
not checking ownership so that recursive locks result in deadlock,
while the other policy makes no attempt to define the semantics at

Bill Kempf

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