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
No, you don't need an atomic unlock-A-and-lock-B method, but it does need an
extra internal mutex.
-- 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk