Re: [boost] [thread] Questions/concerns about recent thread lib changes

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:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2320.html

See also:

http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/10/128343.php

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
> changes?

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 
c++0x.

Jeff