Re: [boost] [signals/threadsafe version] Atomic disconnects

From: Johan Torp (johan.torp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-09 12:55:42

My bad. I meant it wouldn't crash if it was a single threaded program.

My point is this; Existing boost.signal users who want to use signals across
thread boundaries might be fooled to think that they can just change the
threading policy of their existing signals and everything works nicely.

Johan

Peter Dimov-5 wrote:
> 
> Johan Torp:
> 
>> Peter Dimov-5 wrote:
>>>
>>> It would also crash if the signal wasn't thread safe, so where's the
>>> difference?
>>>
>>
>> Why would it crash?
> 
> Because the thread-safe signal will only crash in your program when the 
> signal is being called in one thread and the class was destroyed in
> another. 
> Perhaps I'm missing something though. Your program wasn't complete. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-signals-threadsafe-version--Atomic-disconnects-tp15412841p15943402.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.