Re: [boost] Future of Boost.Thread, date-time, and C++0x

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-08 12:00:57

Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:

> On Oct 8, 2007, at 10:42 AM, Anthony Williams wrote:

> I can help with a posix implementation.  I don't have windows to  
> develop on though.

Excellent. I've got both available (Windows + kubuntu), but it's certainly
easier to just stick to one platform.

>> Also, even though it's been punted to TR2, I want to get the read- 
>> write mutex
>> back in --- I have a new implementation, and it's been missing since  
>> 1.32, so
>> it would be good to get it back in the relese.
>
> I can help on posix here too.  I'm hoping it will look something like:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2406.html#shared_mutex

That looks like my prototypes, other than the name.

> or at least take some of those design decisions into consideration.   
> The downside is that the above really needs rvalue ref for the upgrade- 
> stuff.  Possibilities include just not doing the upgrade stuff if  
> rvalue ref is missing, or simulating move along the lines of what Dave  
> has done.

I've got a simulated move that I've been using.

> The standard containers are an integral part of the proposed  
> std::thread package.  Without move support in the standard containers  
> useful structures such as vector<thread> are going to be missing.  The  
> lack of thread factory functions will also be unfortunate until  
> compilers (such as gcc 4.3, boostcon and CodeWarrior 10) support  
> returning move-only types from functions.

Simulated move can handle thread factory functions, but you can't get
vector<thread> without a suitable standard library.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL