Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-10-29 14:39:00

--- In boost_at_y..., "Anson Tsao" <ansont_at_m...> wrote:
> Perhaps it makes sense to treat WAIT_ABANDONED the same as
> WAIT_OBJECT_0, in that case the assertions should reflect that. I
> not use the term 'runtime condition' properly in this context, my
> concern is whether WAIT_ABANDONED is something that should never
> thus an assertion, or whether it is a valid runtime error that
needs to
> be handled.

Well, there are two ways to get an abandoned mutex. One is to forget
to unlock the mutex before the thread completes, which should not be
possible to do in Boost.Threads because of the forced usage of the
Scoped Lock pattern. The other is for a mutex to be locked by a
thread when someone calls TerminateThread on it. We all know the
dangers of TerminateThread and I'd hate to try and cater to it to
this extent.

Above and beyond all of this, there's a school of thought that says
the MS concept of abandoned mutexes is flawed any way. The only
thing that happens with abandoned mutexes is that any thread that
tries to lock the mutex once it's been abandoned returns the
WAIT_ABANDONED result, but there's nothing you can do with this
result. There's no way to recover from this "error". So it's really
just taking error handling a step too far. In fact, this is why most
(all?) other platforms have no concept of abandoned mutexes and will
instead deadlock in the cases where MS returns WAIT_ABANDONED.

Do you have any specific thoughts on any of this? If not, I'm
inclined to leave the assert as it is, or possibly to create an
artificial deadlock if WAIT_ABANDONED is returned.

Bill Kempf

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