|
Boost :
|
- Next message: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Previous message: Howard Hinnant: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- In reply to: Howard Hinnant: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Next in thread: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Reply: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
On Aug 24, 2007, at 5:22 PM, Howard Hinnant wrote:
> The current boost::condition::wait(lock) throws if lock.locked()
> returns false. To people view this as a recoverable run time
> error? Or a debug feature that should not be present in release
> builds?
>
> I.e. if lock.locked() (lock.owns() or lock.holds_mutex() or
> whatever) returns false, is that undefined or defined behavior?
>
> -Howard
Or should condition::wait() not take any parameters, or take only
mutexes, making the issue moot?
-Howard
- Next message: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Previous message: Howard Hinnant: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- In reply to: Howard Hinnant: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Next in thread: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
- Reply: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [thread] RFC standard proposed mutex, read-write mutex, condition"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk