From: Pete Becker (petebecker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-06 11:36:48
At 04:50 PM 8/6/2002 +0100, Anthony Williams wrote:
>Now I'm thinking you mean Win32 doesn't have the required support to avoid
>init order problems. What is wrong with using named Mutexes?
I don't see what you're getting at. You still have to create the Win32
mutex, so there's a potential initialization order problem if some other
object uses the containing object before the Win32 mutex has been created.
How does using a named mutex affect this?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk