From: Jonathan Biggar (jon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-17 15:26:55
David Abrahams wrote:
> > The effect is deadlock
> It's not deadlock according to our definition of deadlock:
> "Deadlock is an execution state where for some set of threads,
> each thread in the set is blocked waiting for some action by one of
> the other threads in the set."
> You can't possibly interpret that to cover the case where no thread ever
> tries to lock the mutex again after the lock is leaked.
It is the degenerative case where the cardinality of the thread set is
one, i.e. the thread is blocked waiting for an action the thread itself
has not yet performed. In this case, unlocking the mutex, which it
didn't do due to the exception.
-- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon_at_[hidden] jon_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk