Boost logo

Boost :

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-06 11:07:22

Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Anthony Williams wrote:
>> Sorry, I didn't make it clear. It is the automatic storage duration
>> restriction which is not present on Windows.
> I see.
> But what is your intent?

I was just pointing out that the implementation of call_once for pthreads as a
simple wrapper around pthread_once_t has a not-documented-by-boost restriction
on usage which is not present for the Windows implementation.

> Are you trying to come up with a single mutex, that is both
> statically (lazy) intializeable (i.e. of type POD) _and_ at the same
> time default constructible?

It would be nice.

> This simply is not feasible.

Currently, I tend to agree.

> If your intent is to work around the pthread_once this is as
> I see it, much easier. Just use a static mutex and condition
> to emulate call_once.
> Aren't the ability to statically initialize a mutex, and availability of
> call_once just two sides of the same medal?

Sort of. You can use the same mechanisms for doing both.


Anthony Williams
Software Developer
Just Software Solutions Ltd

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