Boost logo

Boost :

From: Anson Tsao (ansont_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-25 11:46:49

Perhaps it makes sense to treat WAIT_ABANDONED the same as
WAIT_OBJECT_0, in that case the assertions should reflect that. I did
not use the term 'runtime condition' properly in this context, my
concern is whether WAIT_ABANDONED is something that should never occur
thus an assertion, or whether it is a valid runtime error that needs to
be handled.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Seymour [mailto:bsey_at_[hidden]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 11:39 AM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Thread library and Win32

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,

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

Info: Unsubscribe:

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

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