From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-15 07:02:55
Phil Endecott wrote:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
> > "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.
> Thanks! I've found your source (for the pthreads version) here:
That condition_variable_any wrapper doesn't ensure same destruction
safety of condition varaible as POSIX pthread_cond_t. That's not good.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk