Date: 2001-10-30 16:45:04
--- In boost_at_y..., "Gennadiy E. Rozental" <rogeeff_at_m...> wrote:
> > It would help if someone can determine precisely what error is
> > returned here (in the name format instead of the integer
> > Bill Kempf
OK, that's a starting point. Unfortunately, I don't see how any of
the parameters can be considered invalid. Especially since this same
code works on other POSIX/pthread platforms.
Let's try and assume that the guess about the implementation figuring
out there are no other running threads to signal the condition is the
culprit. Can someone on Solaris modify the code such that a dummy
thread is created that simply sleeps for twice as long as we
timeout? This should help to eliminate this guess as the culprit.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk