Boost logo

Boost :

From: Kevin Atkinson (kevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-20 12:45:22

On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > > > I have changed the definition to:
> > > >
> > > ^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > > 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.
> But that might change overnight [on the next start, I mean]... and even
> without any recompiles (rebuilds) on the part of your clients, Kevin.

I said to drop it. I don't care. I have it #ifdef I will leave it that
way. By default I don't have the FAST_MUTEX_INIT_DESTROY defined. So it
is not doing any harm. If others comment on it I may eventually remove
it. It will not change on a next start unless someone upgrades there
library. The glibc document specifically says that
pthread_mutex_destroy does nothing. When it does something I am sure it
will be mentioned in the "Significant Changes" section.

Do you *ever* assume anything that is not specifically spelled out to the
letter in the standard? For example do you believe that
  vector<char> c; &*c.begin()
is not well defined, even though ever one assume it is. Or that it is not
safe to assume the layout of
struct A {
  int x;
  int y;
  A() x(0), y(0) {}
because it is not a POD due to the constructor.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at