From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-15 14:12:45
--- In boost_at_y..., "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "terekhov" <terekhov_at_d...> wrote:
> > > --- In boost_at_y..., "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > Not true. All that would be required is to have the Boost
> > > > synchronization primitives built on top of a complex
> > > > variable that can watch both the state it's interested in
> > as
> > > a
> > > > mutex being unlocked) and for a cancellation request.
> > > > Trivial to implement
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Really? Perhaps then I did something wrong here:
> > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3B0BA709.973337EB%
> > I don't see anything wrong with what you did, though I didn't
> > the code too closely. What makes you assume you must have done
> > something wrong because of what I just said?
> I thought that you mean something else (a *better*, "trivial"
> solution) which would for example, NOT require locking of
> TWO mutexes at the same time in a different order and thus,
> would not need any trylock deadlock resolution. (Personally,
> I am always become very suspicion when I see something like
> this. To me, this is not something, which I would characterize
> as "trivial").
A single mutex and condition variable can be used. The Boost.Threads
mutex types just have to be implemented in a manner similar to how
boost::timed_mutex is today.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk