Re: [boost] Boost.Threads, N2178, N2184, et al

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-26 16:09:19

On Mar 26, 2007, at 3:47 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:

> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>
>> N2178 has the same outlook but recommends considerably more
>> cancellation points (the entire posix set if I understand correctly).
>
> N2178 doesn't recommend a specific set of cancelation points. I  
> expect that
> the standard would need to define a list of mandatory C++  
> cancelation points
> (potentially covering more than just the threading portion) and a  
> list of
> optional cancelation points (which would be similar to the POSIX  
> list of
> optional cancelation points with a few subtractions such as fclose.)

Thanks for the clarification.  If it helps (the readers) here's a link  
to the posix cancellation points (and optional points):

    http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/xsh_chap02_09.html#tag_02_09_05_02

The rationale for my conclusion about N2178 was that once we hand  
control over to pthread_cancel, we're pretty much in the hands of the  
posix committee (or at least the posix implementors).  We may be able  
to make some agreements with them.

-Howard