Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-28 11:20:30

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> [...]
>>> is also broken.
>> Because of the sched_yield or something else?
> Yes (plus the issue of memory barriers).
>> Perhaps the lwm_gcc should just be removed?
>> (and lwm_linux)
> Yes, definitely.

These two are off by default. I'll probably remove them as soon as I switch
the Windows shared_ptr to the atomic version.

> Current impl aside for a moment, pthread_mutex_t does some
> dispatching because it represents multiple mutex types. A
> "lightweight mutex" doesn't need really that.

True, and it doesn't need CV support either. That said, a pthread_mutex is
close enough; the most important requirement for lightweight_mutex is
"header-only" (which is why boost::mutex can't be used.)

> Well, I guess that boost simply needs standard atomic<> template

For shared_ptr yes, but quick_allocator still needs an "ordinary"
header-only mutex.

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