From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 12:48:52
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
>> Roland Schwarz <roland.schwarz_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Anthony Williams wrote:
>>>> That was when the goal was a simple reimplementation under the BSL.
>>>> Now Bill's code is under the BSL, the goalposts have moved to
>>>> focusing on a potential interface for the new standard. Are you in
>>>> agreement that this is a worthwhile goal?
>>> Well, yes in principle, but what about the ongoing platform split?
>>> It is not finished yet.
>> We likely need a platform split whatever interface we go with, since
>> pthreads is quite different at the API level to Windows, even if the
>> same facilities are on offer.
> There is also the option of implementing pthread_rwlock_* on Windows,
> keeping the higher layer platform-independent.
Which still requires a windows-specific layer, and thus a platform split.
> This obviously requires a higher layer that agrees with the pthread_rwlock_*
Which means no upgradeable locks, if nothing else.
The platform split issue is wider than just rwlocks, though.
-- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk