From: Miro Jurisic (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-19 23:18:23
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Marshall Clow <marshall_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >On Monday 19 July 2004 12:00 pm, Michael Glassford wrote:
> >> David Abrahams wrote:
> >> > Hi Boosters,
> >> >
> >> > I've tried several times to contact Bill Kempf about moving forward
> >> > with threads, even leaving him messages on his home answering machine.
> >> > I've had no reply.
> >> That's too bad.
> >Anyone for a Boost Road Trip? <g>
> >> Also, I think in a rewrite it would make sense to ditch the MPTasks
> >> implementation and assume Mac OS applications will use the pthreads
> >> implementation. Unless someone wants to step forward and volunteer to
> >> help with that part.
> >Is the author of the MPTasks implementation (Mac Murrett) unavailable?
> Mac is around.
> I will probably see him this week - I can ask him if that's what people want.
MPTasks are layered on top of pthreads, so it should be fine to replace an
MPTasks implementation of boost::threads with a pthreads one without hurting
anyone, except for clients of boost::threads that depend on the implementation
using MPTasks -- but I don't think that assumption is supported.
By the way, does the boost::threads API assume that preemptive scheduling, or
would it be possible to use boost::threads as an abstraction over cooperative
-- If this message helped you, consider buying an item from my wish list: <http://web.meeroh.org/wishlist>