From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-15 14:04:15
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Matt Hurd <matt.hurd_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:27:08 -0400, David Abrahams
>>> <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>> Can't you just check the hashes and only lock once in that case?
>>> AFAICT, you'd have to record the objects to which the specific thread
>>> had the lock otherwise you can't discriminate on who owns the lock.
>> That's only true if a given thread can lock more than two objects at
>> the same time. Isn't that likely to lead to deadlock, regardless?
> Yep, have you read the last sentence in the block you quoted?
Yes, but I don't see how it's relevant.
> Anyway: consider this (oversimplified) situation:
> // f.cpp
> static object o;
> void f()
> lock( &o );
> // do things
> unlock( &o );
> // g.cpp
> void f();
> static object o2;
> void g()
> lock( &o2 );
> unlock( &o2 );
> Since the f() lock is always nested within the g() lock, there can be no
Sorry, I don't see more than two objects locked at the same time here.
No big deal, I'm probably off base here so will relurk.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk