From: Douglas Gregor (dgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-19 08:49:54
Anthony Williams wrote:
> Phil Endecott <spam_from_boost_dev <at> chezphil.org> writes:
>> In November Sergey Skorniakov wrote to this list asking about the
>> non-thread-safety of Boost.Function and consequently of Boost.Thread
>> itself. Steven Watanbee replied pointing out that the problem is
>> resolved in the trunk.
> Irrespective of any fixes applied to boost.Function, this has been fixed in the
> trunk --- boost.thread no longer depends on boost.function.
It was fixed on the trunk for Boost.Function long ago. It's interesting
that the thread library no longer depends on 'function' (at least, for
launching threads); I see how the change was done (using virtual
functions, which was once the implementation trick used in Function),
but I'm curious as to why? Function has some storage optimizations that
will tend to make it more efficient that the basic virtual
function/templated derived class idiom.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk