Re: first sight

From: terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-15 14:35:08

--- 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:
> > > --- 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 
> condition 
> > > > > variable that can watch both the state it's interested in 
> (such 
> > > 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%
> > 40web.de
> > > 
> > > I don't see anything wrong with what you did, though I didn't 
> read 
> > > 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.

Apropos boost::timed_mutex implementation.

PTHREADS Rationale says:

"<...examples...> Thus it has not yet been shown 
 that the full semantics of mutex locking with 
 timeout can be efficiently and reliably achieved 
 using existing interfaces."

regards,
alexander.