From: Steven Watanabe (steven_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-20 18:16:21
Rene Rivera <grafikrobot <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Sohail Somani wrote:
> >> Steven Watanabe wrote:
> >>> It's not thread safe and the only way I can
> >>> see to make it so is to have a fixed set
> >>> of functions and allocate/deallocate
> >> Why would it need to be thread safe? Usually one puts thread safety
> >> above this kind of utility layer.
> > Well if you need to implement a C-callback that doesn't have a void *
> > data argument.
> You put the thread safety in what the c-function calls. Now if the
> question really is that the setting of the function object instance
> isn't thread safe... You would make the code that calls make_c_function
> thread safe, by using locks for example. Note, calling the c-function,
> and hence the function object, is thread safe AFAIK.
That isn't what I meant. If
f = make_c_function(...);
were sufficient I wouldn't have a problem.
Unfortunatly, it is necessary to retain the lock
until you are done with f.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk