Re: [boost] boost] [thread] thread interruption semantics

From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-14 07:38:22

"Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> writes:

> Anthony Williams wrote:
>> One principle behind the new lock templates is that it should be easy
>> to incorporate new mutex and lock types, and they will still work with the
>> existing facilities (e.g. condition_variable_any).
>
> Hi Anthony,
>
> Can you clarify what you mean by that please?  Are you saying that if I 
> have a new mutex (e.g. my futex implementation) I should be able to use 
> it with the existing condition_variable_any?  (Is that what the "_any" 
> means?)  If that's true I'm impressed; I thought that it was necessary 
> to have some sort of atomic unlock-A-and-lock-B method to do that.

Yes, that's what I meant, and that's what the _any means (as opposed to
condition_variable which only works with unique_lock<mutex> (also known as
mutex::scoped_lock)).

No, you don't need an atomic unlock-A-and-lock-B method, but it does need an
extra internal mutex.

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