Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Interprocess::Semaphore] Deadlock on more producers - one consumer problem
From: Zachary Turner (divisortheory_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-20 18:16:30

2009/6/20 Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]>:
> Zachary Turner wrote:
>> Sorry for jumping into the middle of this.  But shouldn't it only
>> notify_one() if count is greater than or equal to 0?  Not
>> unconditionally.  It's possible to initialize the semaphore with a
>> negative count, and in that case a call to wait() should not unblock
>> until the semaphore is 0 or higher.
> Ummm... Interprocess models POSIX primitives and I see that
> #include <semaphore.h>
> int sem_init(sem_t *sem, int pshared, unsigned int value);
> semaphore value should be always positive, something that does not happen in
> Interprocess:
> interprocess_semaphore(int initialCount);
> So I think I should change interprocess constructor to an unsigned int.

That works too :) Just out of curiosity why doesn't windows backend
just use built-in windows api functions for manipulating semaphores?
CreateSemaphore, etc? I haven't done any performance benchmarks
myself, but it seems like using native system calls would be faster
and more scalable.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at