Re: [boost] Next revision of boost::thread

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-08 20:37:23

At 03:03 PM 1/8/2003, William E. Kempf wrote:

 >The sched_fifo, sched_rr, sched_other, scope_process, and scope_system
 >values are implementation defined, and on POSIX correspond to SCHED_FIFO, 

 >SCHED_RR, SCHED_OTHER, PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS and PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM
 >respectively.

Do these values apply reasonably well to Windows?

 >
 >thread::cancel() indicates that the thread of execution should throw
 >thread_cancel at the next call to a "cancellation point".
 >
 >thread::test_cancel() is a "cancellation point" and will throw
 >thread_cancel if thread::cancel() has been called on the current thread
 >of execution.
 >
 >thread::sleep() and thread::yield() have not changed, except they are now 

 >considered "cancellation points" and may throw thread_cancel.

Are there other cancellation points?

Is there a way to force preemptive cancellation?

Given that there has been a great deal of concern about cancellation, I'd 
like to see a fuller explanation of the cancellation model you are using. 
Also a simple example or two.

Thanks for working on this stuff! Trying to abstract away different O/S 
API's is no fun I'm sure.

--Beman