From: Kevin Atkinson (kevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-20 10:20:24
On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > I have changed the definition to:
> > #ifdef FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY
> > static const pthread_mutex_t MUTEX_INIT = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
> Uhmm. What does your "fast destruction" do? Well, looking at the code
> you've posted, it does nothing... and that's the "fastest" way to leak.
It depends on the implementation. On some, including linux, there is
nothing to free. That's why I call it FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY.
Please stop nick picking, it is not that important. What I had worked on
my implementation. The Mutex class is just an example, I expect it to be
substituted with a boost lock class.
Do you even care about the rest of my code, or does this one "sin" make
the rest of my code invalid? (Sorry I had to get it out, I really hate
when people who pick apart insignificant details and ignore the rest.)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk