[boost] Re: problem with shared_ptr

From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-26 19:38:29

Yitzhak Sapir wrote:
[...]
> > > Totally broken "boosted-lightweight" mutex stuff aside for a moment,
> >
> > Yep. "Totally broken" unfortunately looks like an accurate assessment of the
> > situation.
> 
> What is totally broken about it?  Can you direct me to the discussion 
> of the problem issues with the lightweight mutex? 

http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg44460.php
(Subject: [boost] Re: Question about boost::thread::yield for Win32)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/message/15442
(another problem is...) 

> (Based on the empiric results mentioned above we've moved to using a 
> private implementation of a spinlock, that is not portable yet.  But 
> we're interested).

http://google.com/groups?selm=vnU47.809%24rc5.60740%40news.cpqcorp.net
(No. A spinlock is a...)

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndllpro/html/msdn_scalabil.asp
(4.3 Spinlocks)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3FA61F96.223FDE85%40web.de
(Subject: Re: mutex for c++)

regards,
alexander.

--
http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf
http://www.linuxdevices.com/files/misc/gpl-proposed-rev3.pdf
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/committerguidelines.html