Re: [boost] Re: Thread library and Win32

From: Bill Seymour (bsey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-24 13:38:40

williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:
>
> --- In boost_at_y..., "Anson Tsao" <ansont_at_m...> wrote:
>
> > 2) WaitForSingleObject return values that are not WAIT_OBJECT_0 are
> > asserted in a number of places. They are runtime conditions that can
> > return WAIT_ABANDONED, should probably throw an exception instead.
>
> Possibly.  AFAIK, however, the MS platform is the only one that has
> the concept of abandoned mutexes, so I hesitate to add an exception
> type for this platform specific case.  I'll give it much greater
> thought now that it's raised by someone else.
>

I think the question is whether the error return values
should cause assertions or throw exceptions; and Anson
notes that they represent run-time, not compile-time,
conditions.

As for WAIT_ABANDONED, it means that the thread or process
that had the mutex locked has halted for some reason, so
it's reasonable to consider the mutex no longer locked.
I've always treated WAIT_OBJECT_0 and WAIT_ABANDONED as
equivalent; and Bill's finding that other platforms don't
even have the concept of abandoned mutexes would seem to
support that view.

--Bill Seymour