From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-14 19:55:01
Sean Huang wrote:
> The thread lib has recently gone through drastic changes. These much needed
> changes are very welcome and I really appreciate Anthony's work and efforts.
> We use boost::thread heavily in our mission/performance critical application
> and the quality and stability of the boost::thread code is paramount to us.
> With the recent changes and what happened in that process, I felt that it is
> necessary to raise my concerns to the community. If these concerns have
> already been addressed and managed, I sincerely apologize for generating
> this noise and being paranoid.
I haven't been tracking all the recent changes specifically, but I think that
at least some of them are to have boost.thread start tracking to something
that looks more like the current proposals for c++0x. Specifically:
for discussion of this.
Note that n2320 is now being word-smithed and unless some critical problem
arises should be added to the c++0x working paper before the next committee
meeting. While at its core n2320 depends heavily on boost thread it differs
in a number of ways.
> Specifically, my questions are:
> 1. Do changes in this magnitude warrant a mini-review?
> 2. Is it a good idea that the new implementation be reviewed by other boost
> threading experts such as Peter and/or Howard? Take it to the next level,
> does it make sense to have a peer review process for at least significant
My $0.02 -- mini-review of the threading changes can't hurt given the
importance to the c++ community of getting the best possible threading api in
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk