Re: boost::thread::id()?

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-09-25 08:04:41

--- In boost_at_y..., "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> 
> > > > As for errorcheck mutex
> > > > implementations... you don't need full collation you only need
> > > > equality comparison, which boost::thread has already got.
> > >
> > > But I need something to compare to. Are you suggesting that I 
store
> > a
> > > boost::thread object inside the mutex, just for comparison
> > purposes? Is this
> > > the 'official' Boost.Threads way?
> >
> > Well, yes, that would be the current "official" Boost.Threads way.
> 
> IMHO a "better" way (which does not require extra synchronization
> and thread id comparison) to track lock ownership status is to
> use TSD (note that the problem of limited number of "native"
> TSD slots could be solved quite easily and with almost no
> overhead with respect to speed of "second level" TSD set/get
> operations). e.g. recursive lock with error checking,
> pseudo-code:

Actually, fixing the limited number of "native" TSD slots isn't so 
easy.  The only way to actually fix it would mean that set_specific() 
could fail with an out of memory error, which is problematic and 
quite different from expected gaurantees of TSD implementations.

Bill Kempf