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?
(Subject: [boost] Re: Question about boost::thread::yield for Win32)
(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).
(No. A spinlock is a...)
(Subject: Re: mutex for c++)
-- 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk