From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-09 12:39:03
Peter Dimov-5 wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification. This solution forces the use of shared_ptrs
>> and might keep a Foo instance alive a little bit longer. Especially the
>> latter requirement is a no-no for me.
> If thread A is in the middle of a call to foo.f() and thread B attempts to
> destroy foo, your only options are (1) keep foo alive a little bit longer
> (2) crash. Of course I may be missing something.
No, I believe you are correct, that's why I chose my own "architecture
intrusive" way of implementing thread safe signals.
-- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-signals-threadsafe-version--Atomic-disconnects-tp15412841p15943236.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk