Boost logo

Boost :

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):

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.


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